The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-05-16 City Council PacketOp E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council tnl. }nyo REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 16, 2023, 7:00 PM PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 THOSE COMMENTING USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. Public Works Week Proclamation (5 min) 2. National Police Week Proclamation (5 min) 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO Edmonds City Council Agenda May 16, 2023 Page 1 THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. RECEIVED FOR FILING Claim for Damages for filing (0 min) March 2023 Monthly Financial Report (0 min) ERP Update (0 min) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2023 2. Approval of Council Committee Minutes 3. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 5. PFD Board Candidate Approval 6. Ordinance to Change to Biennial Budget 7. Approval of supplemental agreement for The Blueline Group (Blueline) to provide Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2023. 8. 5-ft dedication for 192nd St SW right-of-way adjacent to 9009 192nd St SW 9. Sno-Isle Library Restoration Project - Proof of Loss Documentation 10. Authorize Mayor Nelson to Sign Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Grant Agreement with Housing Hope 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing on permanent ordinance for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) (45 min) 2. Public Hearing on the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (45 min) 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Resolution related to Primary Clarifier Emergency Corrosion Damage Repair (10 min) 2. Resolution Expressing Support of Prohibiting Public Use of Controlled Substances (20 min) 3. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone (AMD2023-0001) 4. Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with the Transpo Group for the Transportation Plan Update (20 min) 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda May 16, 2023 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Public Works Week Proclamation Staff Lead: Oscar Anti Ilon Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The City historically recognizes the efforts of the Public Works and Utilities Department in providing consistent, high -quality service in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of our public works systems and facilities. Staff Recommendation Narrative The attached proclamation recognizes the substantial contributions made by Public Works and designates the week of May 21 - 27, 2023 as Public Works Week in Edmonds. Attachments: PW week 2023 Packet Pg. 3 City of Edmonds O Office of the Mayor PUBLIC WORKS WEEK WHEREAS; The many services provided to our community by the Department of Public Works & Utilities are of vital importance to the health, safety, comfort, and well- being of the people of this Community, and WHEREAS; These infrastructure, facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of our public works professionals, who are responsible for potable water distribution, wastewater sewage collection and treatment, stormwater drainage, public facilities, vehicle fleets, and street construction, maintenance, and traffic control; and WHEREAS; It is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders and community members in the City of Edmonds to understand and recognize the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities; and, WHEREAS; City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities employees provide much more than basic, routine service and the extraordinary efforts of our diverse public works employees are deserving of acknowledgement for their many contributions to our citizen's quality of life; NOW, THERFORE; I, Mike Nelson, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, do hereby proclaim the week of May 21 — 27, 2023 Public Works Week in Edmonds < j -- elson, Mayor — May 16, 2023 1890 • Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 National Police Week Proclamation Staff Lead: Michelle Bennett Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History In 1962, president Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week. Staff Recommendation n/a Narrative This proclamation recognizes National Police Week and honors the service and sacrifice of those law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities. Attachments: NPW_2023 Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a PrIL11riamat,101" City of Edmonds •Office of the Mayor National Police Week 2023 WHEREAS, In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15t" as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as National Police Week.; and WHEREAS, each year we pause to recognize the 900,000+ law enforcement officers serving across the United States and remember the more than 23,000 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and have been killed in the line of duty since the first recorded death in 1786; and WHEREAS, Since Washington became a state in 1889, 318 officers have been killed in Washington o State, the most recent being Bellevue Police Officer Jordan Jackson on November 22, a 2022; and c WHEREAS, in 2022, 226 law enforcement and corrections officers lost their lives. And to date this r z year, 32 officers have given their lives in the line of duty; and M o N I a WHEREAS, the names of these dedicated public servants are engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.; and zr c a� WHEREAS, the service and sacrifice of all officers killed in the line of duty will be honored during the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's 351" Annual Candlelight Vigil, on the r evening of May 13, 2023; and a WHEREAS, May 15 is designated as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of all fallen officers and their families; NOW THEREFORE, I, Mike Nelson, Mayor, formally designate May 14 — 20, 2023, as Police Week in the City of Edmonds, and publicly salute the service of law enforcement officers in our community and in communities across the nation. Mike Nelson, Mayor I May 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 6 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Claim for Damages for filing Staff Lead: NA Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages for filing. Narrative Brian Leith 188th St SW Edmonds ($1,023.87) Attachments: Claim for Damages - Leith - for council Packet Pg. 7 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM. FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that 17 l A14 L (T 4 who currently resides at mailing address 5 A .,vtr— home phone # work phone #• and who resided at .5 . ME at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is , is claiming damages against C e i-_ J �, z-A10.5 in the sum of $ _ I , [ ` r 7 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 2 Z o 2 2— TIME: M _ LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: �i `f 1 t I R S�? j u e} A ot-4 0 DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. i21f4 lydp1'.! S lbf—rLl 1 4ILk� Tiz+;l; LGG%rcTA�z. e'L/T� P�aP�Li2Tir rti_LL_ G 44 1iF4*D Qi-Alf'iS� �OX 7-16P1l C f �tr�IQ�, R 7TA,-i_a c i&x Cr r' A i 12 t c [-I` I e. M t r y E f 2 i x p r7 Cs " a v "" JZ S T � _cFl K r i_ ri T i:� T6 �vt r� it tit [fir (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair_ 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes _,� No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: E U Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 8 7.1.a This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature t'Claimant Date and place (residential address, city and county] Or Signature of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county) Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable) Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5a' Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E U Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 9 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 March 2023 Monthly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Received for Filing. Narrative March 2023 Monthly Financial Report Attachments: March 2023 Monthly Financial Report Jan -Mar 2023 P&L Packet Pg. 10 I 7.2.a I OF EDP � d lac. 1 $9v CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 2O23 Packet Pg. 11 1 I 7.2.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of March 31, 2023 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate FHLMC Bonds 988,678 0.05 1,000,000 997,364 04/20/23 0.38% FHLB Bonds 1,996,590 0.52 2,000,000 1,951,736 10/05/23 0.22% Kent WA Bonds 286,648 0.67 250,000 253,900 12/01/23 5.00% First Financial - ECA CD 2,803,516 0.75 2,803,516 2,803,516 12/28/23 2.08% First Financial - Waterfront Center CD 245,000 0.75 245,000 245,000 12/28/23 1.49% FHLB Bonds 2,004,464 0.80 2,000,000 2,001,640 01/16/24 4.81% FHLB Bonds 954,866 1.03 1,000,000 955,835 04/10/24 0.35% FM Bonds 996,082 1.22 1,000,000 977,695 06/17/24 2.80% FNMA Bonds 992,693 1.26 1,000,000 963,758 07/02/24 1.75% FHLB Bonds 950,774 1.64 1,000,000 941,687 11/18/24 0.90% Spokane County WA Bonds 207,260 1.67 200,000 191,724 12/01/24 2.10% FHLMC Bonds 974,798 1.95 1,000,000 985,593 03/13/25 3.75% FHLB Bonds 969,524 2.33 1,000,000 980,366 07/28/25 3.60% US Treas u ry Note Note 964,597 2.38 1,000,000 979,531 08/15/25 3.13% TOTAL SECURITIES 15,335,490 1.21 15,498,516 15,229,345 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool TOTAL PORTFOLIO Issuer Diversification Kent WA,- 2% FHLMC, First 13% Financial - CD, 20% Spokane County WA, 1% FHLB, 45% 7,862,576 7,862,576 Demand 4.74% 43,340,947 43,340,947 Demand 2.07% $ 66,702,040 $ 66,432,869 Cash and Investment Balances Checki ng, (in $ Millions) $5.1 , 7% Note, 1.0 , 2% Bonds, 11.5 , 16% State LGIP, 7.9 , 11% CD's, 3.0 , 4% County LGIP, 43.3 , 60% E O t2 d fY fC C R C LL 21 t C O 2 M N O N t v L to O rL d R U C C LL t C O Z CO) N O N t V L C� G r C a� E t U to Q 1 Packet Pg. 12 1 I 7.2.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $1,400, 000 $1 236 875 $1,200,000 1 091 709 $947,931 $950,684 $1,000,000 $882 556 $800,000 $600,000 [it $400,000 $ 200,000 $ 206 ��-iv $- 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023 2 Packet Pg. 13 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY I 7.2.a I L 000000000000000 000000000 000 000 April 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000, 000 6,000, 000 4,000, 000 2,000, 000 General Fund Revenues and Expenses (Rolling 24 months) General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenses AV I ter• � July October January April July October January General Fund Tax Revenue (2017 through 2022 Sales Tax Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 General Fund Tax Revenue (2023 YTD) 3,500,000 3,000, 000 2,500,000 $2,551,514 2,000,000A2 781 1 IWO 1,500,000 — 1,000, 000 500,000 $59,032 Sales Tax Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes 3 I Packet Pg. 14 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2023 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 2,716,321 $ 2,716,321 $ 2,320,252-14.58% February 5,384,133 2,667,812 4,920,100 -8.62% March 8,106,922 2,722,789 8,150,445 0.54% April 11,470,906 3,363,983 May 21,443,623 9,972,717 June 24,353,597 2,909,974 July 27,186,115 2,832,518 August 30,424,939 3,238,824 September 33,093,351 2,668,412 October 37,485,039 4,391,688 November 47,219,142 9,734,102 December 50,352,745 3,133,603 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2023 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 342,055 $ 342,055 $ 151,084 -55.83% February 560,818 218,763 270,799 -51.71% March 909,543 348,725 521,829 -42.63% April 1,192,058 282,515 May 1,541,969 349,911 June 1,918,974 377,006 July 2,301,683 382,709 August 2,708,930 407,246 September 3,135,518 426,588 October 3,524,452 388,935 November 3,913,570 389,117 December 4,400,000 486,430 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. w Packet Pg. 15 1 SALES TAX SUMMARY I 7.2.a I Construction Trade, $416,594 Accommodation, $9,668 _ Clothing and Accessories, CornnVAic Ens, $61,868 Wholesale Trade, — $80,535 12,000,000 10,000, 000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: March 2023 Year -to -Date Total $2,781,110 Automotive Repair, (Zco iaQ Amusement & Food Stores, $92,443 Manufacturing, $31,661 Others, $60,496 Eating & Drinking, $308,863 Annual Sales Tax Revenue $10,302,518 $7,395,114 $8,406,296 $8,452,715 $8,317,046 27 2,781,110 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023 5 I Packet Pg. 16 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2023 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 911,577 $ 911,577 $ 879,231 -3.55% February 1,999,408 1,087,831 1,908,832 -4.53% March 2,854,859 855,451 2,781,110 -2.58% April 3,643,225 788,366 May 4,624,484 981,259 June 5,567,972 943,488 July 6,580,085 1,012,114 August 7,669,335 1,089,249 September 8,683,583 1,014,248 October 9,768,647 1,085,064 November 10,864,900 1,096,253 December 11,900,000 1,035,100 Sales and Use Tax 12,000,000 11,000, 000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 40 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC —0-- Current Year Budget — —Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Personal/Property Tax 2023 Real Personal/Property Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 49,915 $ 49,915 $ 26,466-46.98% February 78,108 28,192 147,332 88.63% March 375,054 296,947 824,405 119.81% April 912,236 537,182 May 5,909,096 4,996,860 June 6,029,957 120,861 July 6,148,773 118,816 August 6,198,768 49,995 September 6,260,415 61,647 October 6,466,132 205,717 November 11,227,156 4,761,024 December 11,327,000 99,844 Real PersonaMoperty Tax 12,000,000 11,000, 000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Cunrent Yeaz Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 6 Packet Pg. 17 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Water Utility Tax 2023 Water Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 86,205 $ 86,205 86,092 -0.13% February 146,468 60,263 143,978 -1.70% March 232,107 85,639 221,845 -4.42% April 288,835 56,728 May 373,578 84,744 June 439,121 65,542 July 541,031 101,910 August 629,368 88,337 September 748,356 118,987 October 835,253 86,898 November 933,046 97,793 December 993,712 60,666 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sewer Utility Tax 2023 Sewer Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 95,852 $ 95,852 $ 89,935 -6.17% February 174,661 78,808 166,439 -4.71% March 269,654 94,993 256,368 -4.93% April 348,626 78,972 May 444,771 96,145 June 523,850 79,080 July 620,193 96,343 August 699,682 79,489 September 799,189 99,507 October 879,620 80,432 November 976,901 97,281 December 1,055,821 78,920 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 7 Packet Pg. 18 1 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2023 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 898,592 $ 898,592 $ 860,924 -4.19% February 1,526,893 628,301 1,439,675 -5.71% March 2,419,579 892,685 2,218,275 -8.32% April 3,010,919 591,341 May 3,894,276 883,356 June 4,577,455 683,180 July 5,644,291 1,066,835 August 6,565,058 920,767 September 7,805,695 1,240,637 October 8,711,524 905,829 November 9,730,927 1,019,403 December 10,363,937 633,010 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2023 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 484,003 $ 484,003 $ 417,703 -13.70% February 1,535,452 1,051,449 1,359,827 -11.44% March 2,020,122 484,671 1,794,224 -11.18% April 2,451,545 431,422 May 2,936,868 485,323 June 3,368,111 431,243 July 3,844,019 475,908 August 4,895,662 1,051,643 September 5,380,996 485,335 October 5,812,621 431,625 November 6,298,011 485,390 December 6,714,303 416,292 Storm Water Sales 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. F O C. d R C M C_ LL t C O 2 tM N O N t V L R O CL C M c LL z r C O M N O N t V L r C N t V fC a+ Q Packet Pg. 19 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter SewerSales 2023 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 958,430 $ 958,430 $ 900,021 -6.09% February 1,745,646 787,217 1,665,119 -4.61% March 2,695,497 949,850 2,565,291 -4.83% April 3,484,346 788,849 May 4,445,696 961,351 June 5,235,623 789,927 July 6,198,081 962,458 August 6,992,099 794,018 September 7,987,044 994,945 October 8,790,485 803,441 November 9,763,192 972,707 December 10,551,011 787,819 Unmeter Sewer Sales l l ,uuu,uuu 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 / 1,000,000/ 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 9 Packet Pg. 20 ■ 7.2.a City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2023 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 5,534,983 $ 5,534,983 $ 4,868,760-12.04% February 9,977,833 4,442,851 10,063,682 0.86% March 14,357,831 4,379,998 14,793,075 3.03% April 18,562,233 4,204,402 May 23,096,754 4,534,521 June 28,326,661 5,229,907 July 32,791,511 4,464,850 August 37,090,589 4,299,078 September 41,872,008 4,781,419 October 46,615,817 4,743,809 November 51,912,151 5,296,334 December 57,687,687 5,775,536 Non -Departmental General Fund 60,000,000 55,000,000 50,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 0. 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2023 Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 2,210,919 $ 2,210,919 $ 1,642,894-25.69% February 3,370,075 1,159,155 3,380,586 0.31% March 4,433,358 1,063,283 4,986,307 12.47% April 5,352,010 918,652 May 6,502,926 1,150,916 June 8,207,872 1,704,946 July 9,220,727 1,012,855 August 10,088,588 867,861 September 11,260,570 1,171,982 October 12,343,718 1,083,149 November 13,681,280 1,337,562 December 15,120,425 1,439,145 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 10 Packet Pg. 21 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2023 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 31,168 $ 31,168 $ 33,649 7.96% February 64,726 33,558 71,252 10.08% March 102,768 38,042 108,460 5.54% April 139,148 36,380 May 185,610 46,462 June 234,717 49,107 July 271,512 36,795 August 321,665 50,154 September 360,348 38,683 October 393,400 33,052 November 434,929 41,529 December 480,256 45,327 Office of Mayor City Council 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --0-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2023 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 40,530 $ 40,530 $ 32,343 -20.20% February 82,920 42,390 63,133 -23.86% March 123,864 40,944 101,671 -17.92% April 165,624 41,760 May 206,480 40,855 June 246,845 40,365 July 288,014 41,169 August 328,829 40,815 September 369,857 41,028 October 410,050 40,193 November 452,572 42,522 December 495,273 42,701 Office of Mayor 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -"-Current Year Budget �PriorYear *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 11 Packet Pg. 22 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2023 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 111,879 $ 111,879 $ 93,116 -16.77% February 212,590 100,710 164,590 -22.58% March 304,874 92,285 230,737 -24.32% April 402,099 97,225 May 499,035 96,936 June 630,337 131,302 July 716,800 86,464 August 811,438 94,638 September 913,015 101,S77 October 1,008,222 95,207 November 1,118,413 110,191 December 1,254,947 136,534 Municipal Court Human Resources 1,300,000 11200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 odr- 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2023 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 107,783 $ 107,783 $ 114,975 6.67% February 217,016 109,233 231,321 6.59% March 329,502 112,486 352,625 7.02% April 443,331 113,829 May 565,420 122,088 June 677,638 112,218 July 792,551 114,913 August 920,812 128,261 September 1,038,313 117,501 October 1,160,412 122,099 November 1,306,850 146,438 December 1,451,763 144,913 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 12 Packet Pg. 23 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2023 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast ActuaIs January $ 75,636 $ 75,636 $ 84,200 11.32% February 158,776 83,140 172,586 8.70% March 244,264 85,488 263,059 7.69% April 326,040 81,776 May 410,629 84,589 June 496,694 86,064 July 586,721 90,027 August 693,939 107,218 September 794,170 100,231 October 898,567 104,397 November 1,032,532 133,965 December 1,199,451 166,919 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 13 Packet Pg. 24 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report - Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund 2023 Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 208,626 $ 208,626 $ 355,645 70.47% February 345,734 137,108 530,347 53.40% March 533,426 187,692 683,467 28.13% April 608,285 74,858 May 714,977 106,692 June 836,660 121,683 July 927,272 90,612 August 1,062,420 135,149 September 1,197,885 135,465 October 1,349,945 152,060 November 1,449,758 99,813 December 1,685,027 235,269 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Administrative Services 2023 Administrative Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 235,621 $ 235,621 $ 253,437 7.56% February 400,584 164,963 571,249 42.60% March 566,179 165,595 774,413 36.78% April 735,689 169,510 May 904,213 168,524 June 1,133,897 229,684 July 1,324,708 190,811 August 1,494,358 169,650 September 1,664,937 170,579 October 1,843,073 178,136 November 2,043,094 200,022 December 2,217,666 174,572 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 14 Packet Pg. 25 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2023 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 96,815 $ 96,815 $ 24,570-74.62% February 193,630 96,815 109,813-43.29% March 290,445 96,815 186,270-35.87% April 387,260 96,815 May 484,075 96,815 June 580,890 96,815 July 677,705 96,815 August 774,520 96,815 September 871,335 96,815 October 968,150 96,815 November 1,064,965 96,815 December 1,161,780 96,815 Police City Attorney 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --0-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2023 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,163,207 $ 1,163,207 $ 1,041,369-10.47% February 2,325,164 1,161,957 2,119,852 -8.83% March 3,539,820 1,214,656 3,173,554-10.35% April 4,711,460 1,171, 639 May 5,925,620 1,214,160 June 7,207,679 1,282,059 July 8,426,096 1,218,417 August 9,573,799 1,147,703 September 10,782,176 1,208,377 October 12,034,062 1,251,887 November 13,502,037 1,467,974 December 14,981,027 1,478,990 Police 15,000,000 14,000,000 13,000,000 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget �Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 15 Packet Pg. 26 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2023 Planning & Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 376,373 $ 376,373 $ 286,492-23.88% February 772,766 396,393 595,086-22.99% March 1,153,437 380,671 913,919-20.77% April 1,554,903 401,467 May 1,949,577 394,674 June 2,342,019 392,442 July 2,770,412 428,393 August 3,172,433 402,021 September 3,591,554 419,121 October 4,008,358 416,804 November 4,457,452 449,094 December 4,976,888 519,436 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2023 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 419,452 $ 419,452 $ 589,720 40.59% February 878,149 458,697 958,125 9.11% March 1,336,929 458,780 1,386,849 3.73% April 1,796,458 459,529 May 2,266,262 469,804 June 2,764,885 498,623 July 3,310,375 545,491 August 3,875,366 564,991 September 4,483,687 608,320 October 4,983,396 499,710 November 5,493,514 510,117 December 6,022,817 529,303 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 16 Packet Pg. 27 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report - Fund 016 - Building Maintenance Fund 2023 Fund 016 - Building Maintenance Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 106,250 $ 106,250 $ 81,158-23.62% February 212,500 106,250 97,897-53.93% March 318,750 106,250 100,936-68.33% April 425,000 106,250 May 531,250 106,250 June 637,500 106,250 July 743,750 106,250 August 850,000 106,250 September 956,250 106,250 October 1,062,500 106,250 November 1,168,750 106,250 December 1,275,000 106,250 Fund 016-Building Maintenance Fund 1,300,000 1,200, 000 1,100, 000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year City ofEdmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2023 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 229,986 $ 229,986 $ 335,018 45.67% February 525,669 295,683 935,298 77.93% March 832,538 306,869 1,264,752 51.92% April 1,125,114 292,577 May 1,391,198 266,084 June 1,610,195 218,997 July 1,876,146 265,951 August 2,221,436 345,290 September 2,620,782 399,346 October 3,065,186 444,404 November 3,431,614 366,428 December 4,013,010 581,396 Facilities Maintenance 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 28 I 7.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2023 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 252,507 $ 252,507 $ 261,418 3.53% February 506,039 253,532 531,670 5.07% March 764,005 257,966 807,168 5.65% April 1,025, 281 261,275 May 1,311,065 285,784 June 1,574,953 263,888 July 1,849,982 275,029 August 2,119,149 269,167 September 2,379,906 260,757 October 2,645,006 265,100 November 2,934,322 289,316 December 3,224,439 290,117 Engine a ring 3,500,000 31000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 6-- Current Yeaz Budget Prior Yew *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. F O i3 d C R C LL t C O M N O N L V L C� G.+ L O Q U C t CO C CO) N O N t V L C� G r L Q 18 Packet Pg. 29 Page 1 of 1 C TIY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 50,352,745 $ 7,290,787 $ 8,150,445 $ 42,202,300 160/c 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 225,000 - - 225,000 00/c Ol l RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - 00/c 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND - - - 00/c 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 17,480 15,259 23,820 (6,340) 1360/c 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - - 00/, .. 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND - - - 00/c O Q. 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 167,650 578 59 167,591 0% Ill STREET FUND 1,815,410 321,969 328,654 1,486,756 180/, 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 11,084,065 1,084,583 1,830,889 9,253,176 170/c .O C eo 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 98,098 77,198 9,261 88,837 9% U- 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 84,400 19,965 22,971 61,429 270/c r C 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 38,960 8,246 10,367 28,593 270/, 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,660 110 13 1,647 10/, M N 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 30,440 7,199 7,731 22,709 250/, N 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,320,090 307,137 263,513 2,056,577 11% tl 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 2,302,980 302,186 264,405 2,038,575 L 11% 127 GIFT S CATALOG FUND 135,340 65,930 33,915 101,425 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 150,960 51,737 50,994 99,966 340/c O Q. 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 5,460 1,294 (7,497) 12,957 -1370/, 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 51,500 14,031 6,606 44,894 130/, �p 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,430 119 17 10,413 .O 00/c C O 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 88,645 37,412 38,089 50,556 430/c r- IL 141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSINGFUND 65,000 23,034 21,312 43,688 330/c 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND 1,249,000 - 1,010 1,247,990 00/c r C 143 TREE FUND 215,100 157 198 214,902 00/, 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 309,800 - - 309,800 00/( rM N 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,713,902 808,208 158,915 2,554,987 60/, N 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 46,790 37,625 (37,625) 00/, v 421 WATER UTILITYFUND 11,950,114 2,553,715 2,586,131 9,363,983 L 220/c 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 9,020,452 1,984,530 2,278,818 6,741,634 250/c y ; C 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,898,844 5,144,772 4,869,903 11,028,941 310/c 0 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,860 3 3,093 1,988,767 00/c 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,188,740 463,683 560,274 3,628,466 130/, .0. 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,481,194 291,812 352,483 1,128,711 240/( Q $ 118,065,319 $ 20,922,442 $ 21,904,016 $ 96,161,303 190/1 19 Packet Pg. 30 I 7.2.a I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Eipenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 57,687,687 $ 11,949,976 $ 14,793,075 $ 42,894,612 260/c 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 367,140 88,086 102,272 264,868 280/c O11 RISK MANANGEMENT RESERVE FUND 25,000 - 25,000 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,900 - - 5,900 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 1,275,000 16,522 100,936 1,174,064 80/c 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - 00/, 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND - - - 00/c p s?. 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND - - - 00/c CD 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 45,800 - - 45,800 0% 111 STREET FUND 2,350,969 612,607 965,565 1,385,404 410/c eo 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,990,960 412,691 1,421,377 8,569,583 140/c li 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 207,380 12,908 5,665 201,715 30/, 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 00/c r C 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 95,400 8,555 670 94,730 1% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - - 26,880 00/, M N 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 - - 3,000 0% N 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 28,500 - 780 27,720 30/, tl L 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 4,062,898 423,951 240,110 3,822,788 60/c 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 1,768,812 133,238 66,831 1,701,981 4% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 497,598 2,462 27,197 470,401 50/c 0 0. 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 249,413 45,724 73,531 175,882 29% � 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 43,842 - - 43,842 00/, <0 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND 50,000 - - 50,000 00/, C 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,900 - 219 11,681 2% LL 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 88,575 11,101 10,176 78,399 110/c >, 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND 1,249,000 232,175 663,059 585,941 530/c 143 TREE FUND 239,800 - - 239,800 00/c 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 309,800 - - 309,800 00/c M 04 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,255,647 1,630,281 568,994 1,686,653 250/c N 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 11,635,050 1,422,285 1,896,223 9,738,827 160/c v L 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 8,086,963 1,143,115 1,127,379 6,959,584 140/c 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,031,246 3,720,393 3,369,420 12,661,826 210/c 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,820 - - 1,989,820 0% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,367,218 346,163 829,288 3,537,930 19% v ca 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,685,027 502,978 683,467 1,001,560 410/c Q 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND - - - - 00/c $ 126,732,225 $ 22,715,212 $ 26,946,235 $ 99,785,990 210% 20 Packet Pg. 31 7.2.a Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: 1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 2 EMSPROPERTY TAX 3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX 4 LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 1 5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 8 GASUTILITY TAX 9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 10 WATERUTILITY TAX 11 SEWERUTILITYTAX 12 SI'ORMWATERUTILITY TAX 13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 15 PULLTABSTAX 16 AMUSEMENT GAMES 17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LIC INS ES AND PERM TS : 18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 19 POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 20 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 21 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 22 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 23 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-ZIPLY FIBER 24 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 25 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 26 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 27 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 28 BUILDING PERMIT S 29 FIRE PERMIT 30 ENGINEERING PERMIT 31 ANIMAL LICENSES 32 STREET AND CURB PERMIT 33 STREET AND CURB PERMIT W/LEASEHOLD TAX 34 OTRNON-BUSLIC/PERMITS 35 SPECIAL EVENT REVIEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 36 FEDERAL GRANTS - BUDGET ONLY 37 DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 38 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 39 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 40 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 41 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 42 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 43 CJ - POPULATION 44 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 45 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION 46 DUI - CITIES 47 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 48 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 49 MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 50 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND 51 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. $ 11,327,000 $ 287,837 $ 824,405 $ 10,502,595 70/( 4,578,000 114,531 330,582 4,247,418 70/( 500 27 4 496 10/( 11,900,000 2,666,259 2,781,110 9,118,890 230/( 7,600 4,804 - 7,600 00/( 1,150,000 249,575 259,807 890,193 230/c 1,900,000 534,798 542,135 1,357,865 290/( 845,000 305,138 352,921 492,079 420/( 384,000 94,158 71,026 312,974 180/c 1,000,234 212,668 221,845 778,389 220/( 942,960 160,357 256,368 686,592 270/( 621,458 174,064 179,423 442,035 290/( 850,000 203,217 204,076 645,924 240/( 773,000 130,244 92,079 680,921 120/( 80,200 18,591 22,264 57,936 280/c 350 - - 350 00/( 326,000 77,158.4 78,017.5 247,982 240/( 36,686,302 5,233,427 6,216,061 30,470,241 170% 250 50 50 200 200/( 700 20 225 475 320/( 94,500 14,725 22,189 72,311 230/( 702,700 179,444 171,516 531,184 240/( 41,000 9,105 8,478 32,522 210/( 100,600 12,550 9,373 91,227 90/( 450,000 84,298 101,463 348,537 230/( 250,000 64,396 66,225 183,775 260/( 80,000 24,775 22,920 57,080 290/( 30,000 30,173 13,962 16,038 470/( 750,600 222,875 143,042 607,558 190/( - - 600 (600) 00/( - - 7,090 (7,090) 00/( 24,000 7,135 9,559 14,441 400/( 75,000 12,958 18,340 56,660 240/( - - 293 (293) 00/( 20,000 - 4,194 15,806 210/( - 3,754 251 (251) 00/( 2,619,350 666,258 599,769 2,019,581 230% 166,309 - - 166,309 00/( 9,000 5,237 - 9,000 00/( 11,100 718 3,845 7,255 350/( 1,494,875 - - 1,494,875 00/( 244,645 - - 244,645 00/( 210,500 - - 210,500 00/( 16,740 5,388 5,338 11,402 320/( 13,070 3,571 3,758 9,312 290/( 50,600 12,693 13,294 37,306 26°/ 125,000 24,665 26,513 98,487 210/( 4,500 1,793 53 4,448 10/( 325,000 72,230 71,223 253,777 22°/ 343,200 83,190 82,149 261,051 240/( - - 500 (500) 00/( 1,000 - - 1,000 0°/ 550 - - 550 00/( 3,016,089 209,486 206,674 2,809,415 70% O Q. d i0 C c0 c M t C O M N O N t v c`o O Q d w 20 C O C IL s C O n CO) N O N t U R 2 r C a) E t U M Q 2022 Local Retail Sa/esiUse Tax revenues are $114,851 higher than 2021 revenues. Please also see pages pages 5 & 6. 21 1 Packet Pg. 32 1 7.2.a Page 2 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: 1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES 3 CREDIT CARD FEES 4 COURT RECORD SERVICES 5 D/M COURT REC SER 6 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 7 IT TIME PAY FEE 8 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 9 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 10 PHOTOCOPIES 11 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 12 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 13 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILINGFEES 14 CUSTODIAL SERVICES(SNO-ISLE) 15 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 16 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 17 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 18 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 19 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 20 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 21 LEGAL SERVICES 22 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 23 BOOKING FEES 24 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 25 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 26 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 27 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 28 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 29 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 30 FIRE PLAN REVIEW 31 PLANNING REVIEW AND INSPECTION 32 S.E.P.A. REVIEW 33 ENGINEERINGPLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 34 CRITICAL AREA STUDY 35 GYM AND WEI MTROOM FEES 36 PROGRAM FEES 37 HOLIDAY MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 38 UPTOWN EVENING MARKET FEES 39 WINTERMARKET FEES 40 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 41 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS $ 3,000 $ 1,897 $ 924 $ 2,076 310/( 600 44 45 555 80/( 6,000 441 - 6,000 00/( 150 1 - 150 00/( 300 - - 300 00/( 4,000 - - 4,000 00/( 1,000 49 46 954 50 50 37 77 (27) 1540/( 25,000 - - 25,000 00/( 100 51 7 93 70/( 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 190,000 82,228 26,678 163,322 140/( 1,400 2,885 - 1,400 00/( 100,000 24,410 12,805 87,195 130/( 5,000 1,400 18,025 (13,025) 3610/( 30,000 - - 30,000 00/( 14,000 - - 14,000 00/( 210,970 52,742 113,713 97,258 540/( - 13 20 (20) 0% 67,000 15,373 19,794 47,206 300/( 1,050 126 - 1,050 00/( 38,000 4,560 2,830 35,170 70/( 3,000 103 53 2,947 20/( 10,000 7,963 5,793 4,207 580/( 3,500 177 200 3,300 60/( 1,077,500 238,403 - 1,077,500 00/( 5,000 1,164 754 4,246 1501( 65,600 24,928 17,062 48,539 260/( 425,000 57,962 140,295 284,705 330/( 4,000 4,234 5,574 (1,574) 1390/( 500 110 2,844 (2,344) 5690/( 3,000 2,220 740 2,260 250/( - - 756 (756) 00/( 14,000 5,370 4,686 9,314 330/( 13,000 231 3,172 9,828 240/( 990,959 174,034 218,632 772,327 220/( 5,000 - 455 4,545 90/( 5,000 - - 5,000 00/( 5,000 6,880 8,805 (3,805) 1760/( 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 3,427,765 294,624 302,153 3,125,612 90/( 6,757,444 1,004,658 906,937 5,850,507 130% Q 22 Packet Pg. 33 7.2.a Page 3 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND PENALTIES: 1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 5 CURRENT TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS 6 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 7 OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 8 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 9 PARK/INDDISZONE 10 DWI PENALTIES 11 DUI - DP ACCT 12 CRIM CNV FEE DUI 13 DUI - DP FEE 14 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 15 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 16 CRIM CONV FEE CT 17 OTHER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 18 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 19 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 20 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 21 CRIM CONV FEE CN 22 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 23 BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT 24 COURT COST RECOUPMENT 25 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 26 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: 27 INVESTMENT INTEREST 28 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 29 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 30 LOAN INTEREST 31 SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 32 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 33 LEASESLONG-TERM 34 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 35 PARKSDONATIONS 36 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 37 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 38 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 39 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 40 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 41 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 42 POLICE JUDGMENT SiRESTITUTION 43 CASHIER'S OVERAGESISHORT AGES 44 OTHER MISC REVENUES 45 SMALL OVERPAYMENT 46 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 47 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 48 L&I STAY AT WORK PROGRAM 49 US BANK REBATE TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 2,000 $ 469 $ 710 $ 1,290 350/( 130,000 15,805 27,099 102,901 210/( 18,000 1,180 773 17,227 40/( 10,000 963 1,053 8,947 110/( - - 23,882 (23,882) 00/( 1,000 - 4,300 (3,300) 4300/( 1,500 218 819 681 5501( 125,000 4,135 2,110 122,890 20/( 2,000 72 239 1,761 120/( 7,000 990 1,083 5,917 1501( 300 26 1 299 00/( 100 9 - 100 00/( 1,500 505 484 1,016 320/( 25,000 2,971 2,571 22,429 100/( 2,000 475 442 1,558 220/( 700 34 - 700 00/( 100 - 100 0 1000/( 12,000 636 108 11,892 10/( 800 12 100 700 130/( 1,000 81 48 952 501( 200 - - 200 00/( 6,000 933 894 5,106 1501( 4,000 790 1,709 2,291 430/( 1,000 49 368 632 370/( 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 150 - - 150 00 352,350 30,353 68,894 283,456 20% 321,240 74,203 6,321 314,919 20/( 10,960 1,116 9,932 1,028 910/( 12,180 1,875 793 11,387 70/( 12,080 - - 12,080 00/( 175,000 11,244 13,919 161,081 80/( 2,100 - - 2,100 00/( 210,000 51,562 56,584 153,416 270/( 1,500 76 83 1,417 60/( 3,500 2,300 500 3,000 140/( 1,500 - - 1,500 00/( 5,000 249 - 5,000 00/( 300 - 565 (265) 1880/( 3,800 996 1,504 2,296 400/( 2,000 - - 2,000 00/( 146,000 - 49,007 96,993 340/( 200 14 47 153 240/( - 20 10 (10) 00/( 5,000 773 1,240 3,760 250/( 100 20 1 99 10/( 100 - - 100 00/( 150 - 4 146 30/( - - 8,702 (8,702) 00/( 8,500 2,158 2,899 5,601 34°/ 921,210 146,605 152,110 769,100 170% $ 50,352,745 $ 7,290,787 $ 8,150,445 $ 42,202,300 160% Q 23 Packet Pg. 34 I 7.2.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 21,585,702 $ 4,326,088 $ 5,394,677 $ 16,191,025 250/ 2 OVERTIME 649,080 302,420 194,698 454,382 300/ 3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 294,001 8,212 5,674 288,327 20/ 4 BENEFITS 7,619,904 1,616,010 1,894,915 5,724,989 250/ 5 UNIFORMS 130,851 13,344 36,300 94,551 280/ 6 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 165,023 11,825 22,294 142,729 140/ 7 SUPPLIES 759,025 80,236 95,049 663,976 130/ 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 302,791 29,359 49,389 253,402 160/ 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,093,206 3,942,748 4,707,739 13,385,467 260/ 10 COMMUNICATIONS 241,295 30,315 41,904 199,391 170/ 11 TRAVEL 74,795 4,397 14,869 59,926 200/ 12 EXCISE TAXES 16,500 7,774 7,407 9,093 450/ 13 RENTAL/LEASE 2,780,344 510,493 659,041 2,121,303 240/ 14INSURANCE 597,722 503,160 625,650 (27,928) 1050/ 15 UTILITIES 663,800 157,296 153,036 510,764 230/ 16 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 593,900 179,938 336,715 257,185 570/ 17 MISCELLANEOUS 652,593 176,364 214,994 437,599 330/ 18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 1000/ 19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 863,000 - - 863,000 00/ 20 BUILDINGS - 284,460 (284,460) 00/ 21 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 430,000 4,264 425,736 10/ 22 CONSTRUCT IONS PROJECTS 800,565 - 800,565 00/ 23 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 191,620 191,620 00/ 24 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 131,470 131,470 00/ 25 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 - - 500 00/ 77,687,687 11,949,976 14,793,075 42,894,612 260/ LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RESERVE(009) 26 BENEFITS $ 206,650 $ 59,723 $ 72,693 $ 133,957 350/ 27 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 152,990 21,363 29,579 123,411 190/ 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 00/ 29 MISCELLANEOUS 500 - - 500 00/ 367,140 88,086 S 102,272 264,868 280/ RISK MANAG04ENT RESERVE FUND (011) 30 MISCELLANEOUS $ 25,000 $ - $ $ 25,000 00/ 25,000 25,000 00/ HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) 31 SUPPLIES $ 100 $ $ $ 100 00/ 32 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 200 00/ 33 MISCELLANEOUS 5,600 5,600 00/ 5,900 5,900 00/ BUILDING MAINTENANCEFUND (016) 34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 121,500 $ 450 $ $ 121,500 00/ 35 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 1,153,500 16,072 81,158 1,072,342 70/ 36 BUILDINGS - - 19,778 (19,778) 00/ 1,275,000 16,522 100,936 1,174,064 8U/ DRUG INFO RCEMFNTFUND (104) 37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 45,000 $ - $ $ 45,000 00/ 38 REPAIR/MAINT 800 800 00/ 45,800 45,800 00/ 24 Packet Pg. 35 I 7.2.a I Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent STREETFUND (111) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 828,313 $ 175,741 $ 366,360 $ 461,953 449 2 OVERTIME 38,400 8,784 10,514 27,886 279 3 BENEFITS 377,585 86,684 129,613 247,972 340 4 UNIFORMS 6,000 3,107 3,070 2,930 519 5 SUPPLIES 263,000 15,428 22,695 240,305 99 6 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 587 552 19,448 39 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,210 4,457 4,874 18,336 219 8 COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 1,284 1,710 2,790 380 9 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 09 10 RENTAL/LEASE 304,730 72,120 75,724 229,006 259 11 INSURANCE 120,821 184,111 126,467 (5,646) 1059 12 UTILITIES 273,730 45,731 47,742 225,988 179 13 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 52,000 4,212 4,580 47,420 99 14 MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 10,360 6,310 1,690 799 15 BUILDINGS 25,000 - - 25,000 09 16 OTHERIMPROVEMENTS - 165,353 (165,353) 09 17 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 4,380 - 4,380 09 18 INTEREST 300 - 300 09 $ 2,350,969 $ 612,607 $ 965,565 $ 1,385,404 419 COMBINED STREETCONST)TMPROVE(112) 19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 3,674,780 $ 109,042 $ 178,619 $ 3,496,161 59 20 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 172,650 - - 172,650 09 21 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - 122 - - 09 22 LAND 270,000 32,660 - 270,000 09 23 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,818,580 270,868 1,242,758 4,575,822 219 24 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 54,070 - - 54,070 09 25 INTEREST 880 - - 880 09 $ 9,990,960 $ 412,691 $ 1,421,377 $ 8,569,583 149 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) 26 SUPPLIES $ 4,700 $ - $ 493 $ 4,207 109 27 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,700 - - 1,700 09 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 191,000 11,883 3,855 187,145 29 29 TRAVEL 80 - - 80 09 30 RENTAL/LEASE 3,000 - 3,000 09 31 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 09 32 MISCELLANEOUS 6,600 1,025 1,317 5,283 200 $ 207,380 $ 12,908 $ 5,665 $ 201,715 39 HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 90,400 $ 8,555 $ 670 $ 89,730 19 34 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 - - 1,000 09 35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - - 4,000 09 $ 95,400 $ 8,555 $ 670 $ 94,730 19 EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) 36 SUPPLIES $ 1,790 $ - $ - $ 1,790 09 37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,090 - 25,090 09 $ 26,880 $ $ - $ 26,880 09 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) 38 MISCELLANEOUS $ 3,000 $ $ - $ 3,000 09 $ 3,000 $ $ - $ 3,000 09 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) 39 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 28,500 $ $ 780 $ 27,720 39 $ 28,500 8 $ 780 $ 27,720 39 25 Packet Pg. 36 I 7.2.a I Page 3 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ESTATE EXC ISE TAX 2 (125) 1 SUPPLIES $ - $ 7,222 $ - $ - 09 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 586,957 59,372 24,938 562,019 49 3 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 926,300 56,168 25,013 901,287 39 4 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 5,684 - - 5,684 09 5 LAND 200,000 - - 200,000 09 6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,343,957 301,189 190,159 2,153,798 89 $ 4,062,898 $ 423,951 $ 240,110 $ 3,822,788 69 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI (126) 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 10 LAND 11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 13 INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) 14 SALARIES AND WAGES 15 OVERTIME 16 BENEFIT S 17 SUPPLIES 18 SMALL EQUIPMENT 19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20 RENTAL/LEASE 21 MISCELLANEOUS CEVIEIERY MAINTENANCBIMPRO VEMENT (130) 22 SALARIES AND WAGES 23 OVERTIME 24 BENEFIT S 25 UNIFORMS 26 SUPPLIES 27 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29 COMMUNICATIONS 30 TRAVEL 31 RENTAL/LEASE 32 UTILITIES 33 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 34 MISCELLANEOUS PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CUMEIERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFUND (137) 36 SMALL EQUIPMENT SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) 37 SUPPLIES 38 TRAVEL 39 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) 40 SUPPLIES 41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42 MISCELLANEOUS EDMONDS RESCUEPLAN FUND (142) 43 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREE FUND (143) 44 SUPPLIES 45 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46 LAND $ 256,260 $ 22,499 $ 16,831 $ 239,429 79 550,800 13,266 - 550,800 09 147,557 - - 147,557 09 - - 50,000 (50,000) 09 554,755 97,473 - 554,755 09 155,470 - - 155,470 09 103,970 - - 103,970 09 $ 1,768,812 $ 133,238 $ 66,831 $ 1,701,981 49 $ 196,455 $ $ 7,431 $ 189,024 49 - 437 (437) 09 80,033 1,620 78,413 29 146,000 2,462 13,158 132,842 99 500 - - 500 09 56,500 - 56,500 09 17,510 4,378 13,132 259 600 - 173 427 299 $ 497,598 $ 2,462 $ 27,197 $ 470,401 59 $ 137,541 $ 21,898 $ 41,189 $ 96,352 309 3,500 210 707 2,793 209 54,487 9,412 13,400 41,087 259 1,000 - - 1,000 09 7,000 45 2,241 4,759 329 20,000 5,253 5,898 14,102 299 4,200 800 1,438 2,762 349 1,700 428 432 1,268 259 500 - - 500 09 9,420 2,923 2,387 7,033 259 5,565 888 1,383 4,182 259 500 - - 500 09 4,000 3,868 4,455 (455) 1119 $ 249,413 $ 45,724 $ 73,531 $ 175,882 299 $ 43,842 $ $ - $ 43,842 09 $ 43,842 $ $ - $ 43,842 09 $ 50,000 $ $ - $ 50,000 09 $ 50,000 $ $ - $ 50,000 09 $ 1,500 $ $ - $ 1,500 09 4,500 - 4,500 09 5,900 219 5,681 49 $ 11,900 $ $ 219 $ 11,681 29 $ 4,091 $ 94 $ 298 $ 3,793 79 78,327 10,835 9,204 69,123 129 6,157 172 674 5,483 119 88,575 11,101 10,176 78,399 119 $ 1,249,000 $ 232,175 $ 663,059 $ 585,941 539 1,249,000 232,175 663,059 585,941 539 $ 1,000 $ $ - $ 1,000 09 39,800 - 39,800 09 199,000 - 199,000 09 239,800 - 239,800 09 Q 26 Packet Pg. 37 I 7.2.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DErAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND $ 235,000 $ $ - $ 235,000 09 INTEREST 74,800 - 74,800 09 $ 309,800 $ $ - $ 309,800 09 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) 3 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 6 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 7 INTEREST WATER FUND (421) 8 SALARIES AND WAGES 9 OVERTIME 10 BENEFIT S 11 UNIFORMS 12 SUPPLIES 13 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 14 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 15 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17 COMMUNICATIONS 18 TRAVEL 19 EXCISE TAXES 20 RENTAL/LEASE 21INSURANCE 22 UTILITIES 23 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 24 MISCELLANEOUS 25 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 26 BUILDINGS 27 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 28 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 29 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 30 REVENUE BONDS 31 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32 INTEREST STORM FUND (422) 33 SALARIES AND WAGES 34 OVERTIME 35 BENEFIT S 36 UNIFORMS 37 SUPPLIES 38 SMALL EQUIPMENT 39 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40 COMMUNICATIONS 41 TRAVEL 42 EXCISE TAXES 43 RENTAL/LEASE 44INSURANCE 45 UTILITES 46 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 47 MISCELLANEOUS 48 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 49 LAND 50 BUILDINGS 51 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 52 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 53 REVENUE BONDS 54 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 55 INTEREST $ - $ 62,656 $ - $ - 09 1,352,620 91,809 21,528 1,331,092 29 805,377 1,475,816 547,466 257,911 689 50,000 - - 50,000 09 47,650 - - 47,650 09 $ 2,255,647 $ 1,630,281 $ 568,994 $ 1,686,653 259 $ 963,268 $ 190,522 $ 301,339 $ 661,929 319 24,000 4,561 3,434 20,566 149 393,439 79,936 98,914 294,525 259 4,000 1,221 2,129 1,871 539 150,000 44,060 37,820 112,180 259 2,398,000 262,019 292,333 2,105,667 129 180,000 57,613 49,808 130,192 289 13,500 670 1,838 11,662 149 2,256,928 127,633 361,364 1,895,564 169 35,000 6,709 7,968 27,032 239 200 - - 200 09 1,696,934 318,512 333,368 1,363,566 209 187,952 37,987 46,612 141,340 259 215,319 122,359 225,379 (10,060) 1050 35,000 8,339 9,625 25,375 289 71,130 11,535 11,705 59,425 160 123,600 61,398 65,304 58,296 539 646,370 - - 646,370 09 12,500 12,500 09 10,000 - - 10,000 09 1,670,000 87,212 47,283 1,622,717 39 2,940 - - 2,940 09 333,830 333,830 09 25,840 25,840 09 185,300 - - 185,300 09 $ 11,635,050 $ 1,422,285 $ 1,896,223 $ 9,738,827 169 $ 821,952 $ 196,131 $ 357,241 $ 464,711 439 26,000 7,110 2,653 23,347 109 342,317 80,379 113,161 229,156 330 6,500 4,640 3,858 2,642 599 46,000 19,986 3,805 42,195 89 4,000 587 - 4,000 09 3,124,919 199,607 190,606 2,934,313 69 3,200 1,091 1,631 1,569 519 4,300 - - 4,300 09 499,658 201,489 207,849 291,809 429 293,210 66,250 72,519 220,691 259 30,265 82,335 31,680 (1,415) 1050 10,500 4,748 4,302 6,198 419 189,130 11,040 11,065 178,065 69 232,300 73,657 51,240 181,060 229 283,237 - - 283,237 09 680,000 - 680,000 09 25,000 - - 25,000 09 1,031,645 194,065 75,768 955,877 79 107,290 - - 107,290 09 160,870 - 160,870 09 61,600 - 61,600 09 103,070 - - 103,070 09 $ 8,086,963 $ 1,143,115 $ 1,127,379 $ 6,959,584 149 O Q. d <0 C t0 C M t C O M N O N t v c`o O Q d <0 C C IL z C O M N O N t U L C d E t U O Q 27 Packet Pg. 38 I 7.2.a I Page 5 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent SEWER FUND (423) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,468,518 $ 467,317 $ 866,696 $ 1,601,822 359 2 OVERTIME 130,000 44,128 52,714 77,286 419 3 BENEFITS 867,257 184,029 290,355 576,902 339 4 UNIFORMS 11,500 4,794 5,689 5,811 490 5 SUPPLIES 453,000 67,115 100,721 352,279 229 6 FUEL CONSUMED 20,000 - - 20,000 09 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 5,000 - - 5,000 09 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 83,900 89,777 2,146 81,754 M 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,587,949 511,460 534,970 2,052,979 219 10 COMMUNICATIONS 48,000 10,851 12,203 35,797 259 11 TRAVEL 5,000 - - 5,000 09 12 EXCISE TAXES 1,026,360 217,029 311,045 715,315 309 13 RENTAL/LEASE 312,006 81,329 77,630 234,376 259 14 INSURANCE 344,564 203,936 362,302 (17,738) 1059 15 UTILITIES 1,582,060 364,051 593,215 988,845 379 16 REPAIR& MAINTENANCE 728,630 317,205 57,197 671,433 89 17 MISCELLANEOUS 138,350 44,414 82,252 56,098 599 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,588,089 - - 1,588,089 09 19 BUILDINGS 12,500 - - 12,500 09 20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,976,163 1,092,673 - 2,976,163 09 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 129,820 - - 129,820 09 22 REVENUE BONDS 55,310 - - 55,310 09 23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 104,000 15,397 15,754 88,246 150 24 INTEREST 353,270 2,786 2,582 350,688 19 25 OTHER INT ERESr & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 2,102 1,948 (1,948) 09 $ 16,031,246 $ 3,720,393 $ 3,369,420 $ 12,661,826 219 BOND RESERVEFUND (424) 26 REVENUE BONDS $ 840,010 $ $ $ 840,010 09 27INTEREST 1,149,810 1,149,810 09 $ 1,989,820 $ $ - $ 1,989,820 09 Q 20 Packet Pg. 39 I 7.2.a I Page 6 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 279,652 $ 73,548 $ 130,524 $ 149,128 479 2 OVERTIME 2,000 222 - 2,000 09 3 BENEFITS 105,497 29,018 37,199 68,298 350 4 UNIFORMS 1,500 689 519 981 359 5 SUPPLIES 149,120 45,415 19,687 129,433 130 6 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 09 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 458,880 112,225 100,429 358,451 229 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 1,950 362 57,638 19 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46,750 349 418 46,332 19 10 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 516 756 2,244 259 11 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 09 12 RENTAL/LEASE 17,470 2,526 4,191 13,279 249 13 INSURANCE 47,938 51,903 52,373 (4,435) 1099 14 UTILITIES 14,000 5,850 7,458 6,542 530 15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 9,606 11,621 48,379 199 16 MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 1,441 1,827 10,173 159 17 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 3,109,411 10,903 461,925 2,647,486 159 $ 4,367,218 $ 346,163 $ 829,288 $ 3,537,930 199 TEC HNO LO GY RENTAL FUND (512) 18 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 600,771 $ 66,179 $ 131,533 $ 469,238 229 19 OVERTIME 2,000 - - 2,000 09 20 BENEFITS 180,554 26,961 45,402 135,152 259 21 SUPPLIES 5,000 2,075 1,718 3,282 349 22 SMALL EQUIPMENT 181,800 15,261 51,415 130,385 289 23 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61,860 3,349 10,026 51,834 169 24 COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 12,087 14,186 44,584 249 25 TRAVEL 1,500 - - 1,500 09 26 RENTAL/LEASE 4,640 1,115 410 4,230 99 27 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 476,532 375,901 419,006 57,526 889 28 MISCELLANEOUS 55,600 50 9,770 45,830 189 29 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 56,000 - - 56,000 09 $ 1,685,027 $ 502,978 $ 683,467 $ 1,001,560 419 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 126,732,225 $ 22,715,212 $ 26,946,235 $ 99,785,990 219 O CL d <0 C c0 C IL t C O M N O N t V L O O O. d w <0 C C iL z r C O a M N O N t U L C� G r c.i Q 29 Packet Pg. 40 7.2.a Page 1 of 1 M I VC13aD1311C19AIM EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY Title CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES SATELLITE OFFICE COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM PARKS& RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Title 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 480,256 $ 71,408 $ 108,460 $ 371,796 23% 495,273 89,568 101,671 393,602 21% 1,254,947 203,581 230,737 1,024,210 18% 1,451,763 284,025 352,625 1,099,138 24% 2,217,666 547,460 774,413 1,443,253 35% ,E 1,161,780 233,065 186,270 975,510 16% Q. 15,120,425 4,072,745 4,986,307 10,134,118 33% d 14,981,027 3,008,075 3,173,554 11,807,473 21% tj C 145,681 21,922 26,541 119,140 18% 1,199,451 122,479 263,059 936,392 22% 4,976,888 909,669 913,919 4,062,969 18% 324,650 25,870 56,209 268,441 17% O 6,022,817 1,040,803 1,386,849 4,635,968 23% C 3,842,053 757,219 967,711 2,874,342 25% cm t v 4,013,010 562,089 1,264,752 2,748,258 32% $ 57,687,687 $ 11,949,976 $ 14,793,075 $ 42,894,612 26% O 0. O CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY C 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount IL >% Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent z WATER UTILITY FUND $ 11,635,050 $ 1,422,285 $ 1,896,223 $ 9,738,827 16% r_ 0 n STORM UTILITY FUND 8,086,963 1,143,115 1,127,379 6,959,584 14% N SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,031,246 3,720,393 3,369,420 12,661,826 0 21% N BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,820 - - 1,989,820 0% t i $ 37,743,079 $ 6,285,793 $ 6,393,021 $ 31,350,058 17% r c a� E t U to Q 30 Packet Pg. 41 I 7.2.a I Page 1 of 2 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2023 Adopted Budget 3/31/2022 Expenditures 3/31/2023 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES AND WAGES $ 214,276 $ 42,890 $ 54,958 $ 159,318 26% BENEFITS 102,845 23,106 25,827 77,018 25% SUPPLIES 11,000 236 433 10,567 4% SERVICES 152,135 5,176 27,243 124,892 18% $ 480,256 $ 71,408 $ 108,460 $ 371,796 23% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES AND WAGES $ 274,988 $ 61,694 $ 64,189 $ 210,799 23% BENEFITS 88,487 21,658 22,420 66,067 25% _ SUPPLIES 1,500 1,440 284 1,216 19%' SERVICES 130,298 4,777 14,779 115,519 11% s?. $ 495,273 $ 89,568 $ 101,671 $ 393,602 21% CD HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 747,258 $ 116,150 $ 127,367 $ 619,891 1770 t� BENEFITS 236,609 41,649 48,229 188,380 20% SUPPLIES 13,600 246 460 13,140 3% C SERVICES 257,480 45,536 54,682 202,798 21% M $ 1,254,947 $ 203,581 $ 230,737 $ 1,024,210 18% MUNICIPAL C O URT C SALARIES AND WAGES $ 937,770 $ 192,338 $ 235,460 $ 702,310 25% 0 BENEFITS 302,672 54,922 75,145 227,527 25% SUPPLIES 11,600 2,507 4,851 6,749 42% M N SERVICES 199,721 34,258 37,169 162,552 19% N $ 1,451,763 $ 284,025 $ 352,625 $ 1,099,138 24% t ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES i SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,418,894 $ 331,842 $ 487,548 $ 931,346 34% BENEFITS 429,103 110,163 129,844 299,259 30% SUPPLIES 13,000 2,729 2,796 10,204 22% SERVICES 356,669 102,725 154,225 202,444 43% 0. $ 2,217,666 $ 547,460 $ 774,413 $ 1,443,253 35% (D CITY ATPO RNEY SERVICES $ 1,161,780 $ 233,065 $ 186,270 $ 975,510 16% '0 $ 1,161,780 $ 233,065 $ 186,270 $ 975,510 16% NON -DEPARTMENTAL C SALARIES AND WAGES $ 101,750 $ - $ - $ 101,750 0% LL BENEFITS 239,583 18,865 37,772 201,811 16% s SUPPLIES 5,000 - - 5,000 0% SERVICES 13,537,502 4,003,880 4,898,535 8,638,967 36% 0 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 913,000 50,000 50,000 863,000 5% z DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL 191,620 - - 191,620 0% CO) DEBT SERVICE - INTEREST 131,970 - - 131,970 0% N $ 15,120,425 $ 4,072,745 $ 4,986,307 $ 10,134,118 33% t PO LIC E SERVIC ES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 9,556,760 $ 2,001,754 $ 1,975,849 $ 7,580,911 21% BENEFITS 3,303,628 692,447 720,278 2,583,350 22% SUPPLIES 342,941 28,690 33,205 309,736 10% SERVICES 1,777,698 285,184 444,221 1,333,477 25% E $ 14,981,027 $ 3,008,075 $ 3,173,554 $ 11,807,473 21% V S ATELLITE O FFIC E i4 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 38,537 $ - $ 10,920 $ 27,617 28% Q BENEFITS 7,298 - 2,075 5,223 28% SUPPLIES 12,000 10,980 - 12,000 0% SERVICES 87,846 10,941 13,545 74,301 15% $ 145,681 $ 21,922 $ 26,541 $ 119,140 18% 31 Packet Pg. 42 1 I 7.2.a I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2023 Adopted 3/31/2022 3/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC O N DEV. SALARIES AND WAGES $ 550,413 $ 50,441 $ 159,276 $ 391,137 29% BENEFITS 153,183 16,285 40,747 112,436 27% SUPPLIES 4,075 184 391 3,684 10% SERVICES 491,780 55,568 62,645 429,135 13% $ 1,199,451 $ 122,479 $ 263,059 $ 936,392 22% PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,176,581 $ 542,158 $ 558,228 $ 1,618,353 26% BENEFITS 736,473 183,402 209,013 527,460 28% SUPPLIES 23,400 1,366 3,275 20,125 14% SERVICES 2,040,434 182,744 143,403 1,897,031 7% $ 4,976,888 $ 909,669 $ 913,919 $ 4,062,969 18% HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM SALARIES AND WAGES $ 101,849 $ 14,413 $ 27,870 $ 73,979 27% BENEFITS 29,301 2,888 8,012 21,289 27% SUPPLIES 15,000 59 661 14,339 4% SERVICES 178,500 8,510 19,666 158,834 11% 324,650 25,870 56,209 268,441 17% PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,859,976 $ 571,618 $ 824,595 $ 2,035,381 29% BENEFITS 968,480 202,033 266,030 702,450 27% SUPPLIES 468,900 41,287 59,789 409,111 13% SERVICES 1,635,461 225,866 236,436 1,399,025 14% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 90,000 - - 90,000 0% $ 6,022,817 $ 1,040,803 $ 1,386,849 $ 4,635,968 23% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND WAGES $ 372,900 $ 33,162 $ 104,156 $ 268,744 28% BENEFITS 142,675 16,076 31,472 111,203 22% SUPPLIES 9,600 1,211 3,618 5,982 38% SERVICES 92,439 20,793 21,297 71,142 23% $ 617,614 $ 71,242 $ 160,542 $ 457,072 26% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES AND WAGES 981,868 216,781 408,807 573,061 42% BENEFITS 402,717 84,651 136,778 265,939 34% SUPPLIES 128,000 18,660 33,813.86 94,186 26% SERVICES 1,359,860 241,997 396,629 963,231 29% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,140,565 288,725 851,840 25% $ 4,013,010 $ 562,089 $ 1,264,752 $ 2,748,258 32% ENGINEERING SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,194,963 $ 461,480 $ 555,827 $ 1,639,136 25% BENEFITS 772,724 173,033 199,868 572,856 26% SUPPLIES 2,200 - 862 1,338 39% SERVICES 254,552 51,464 50,612 203,940 20% $ 3,224,439 $ 685,977 $ 807,168 $ 2,417,271 25% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 57,687,687 $ 11,949,976 $ 14,793,075 $ 42,894,612 26% F O Q. d R C eo C M 2+ t C O 2 M N 0 N t 0 L cc O C. d C O C IL 21 s C O z CO) N O N t U L M 2 C d E t U O Q 32 Packet Pg. 43 7.2.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- & SUBFUNDS 3/31 /2023 3/31 /2023 Q1 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance 001-General Fund $ 5,001,036 $ 2,600,732 $ (6,642,630) $ (6,642,630. 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 114,591 130,544 (102,272) (102,272: 011-Risk Management Reserve Fund 25,000 25,000 - - 012-ContingencyReserve Fund 1,782,150 1,782,150 - - 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 11,701 11,701 - - �a 016-Building Maintenance 4,219,488 4,362,764 (77,116) (77,116. c 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation 849,766 849,766 - - ii 018 - Edmonds Homelessness Response Fd 200,000 200,000 - - 21 Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 12,203,732 $ 9,962,656 $ (6,822,019) $ (6,822,019 C M N *$9,361,208 of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $1,782,150 balance in Fund 012, represent the required 0 N 20% operating reserve. 2- There are no interfund loans outstanding at this time. 1` 0 Q. m GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW U_ BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 0 GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- CO) FUNDS 3/31 /2023 3/31 /2023 Q1 YTD 0 N Fund Balance Cash Balance — t i General Fund & Subfunds $ 12,203,732 $ 9,962,656 $ (6,822,019) $ (6,822,019. Special Revenue 15,758,161 23,077,486 (592,673) (592,673 c E Capital Projects - Fund 332 (202,396) (281,113) (410,079) (410,079 c� Total Governmental Funds $ 27,759,496 $ 32,759,029 $ (7,824,770) $ (7,824,770 Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 44 7.2.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- SPECIAL REVENUE 3/31/2023 3/31/2023 Q1 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 67,629 $ 70,882 $ 59 $ 59 111 - Street Fund (228,227) (169,267) (636,911) (636,911 112 - Combined Street Const/Im prove 2,849,017 361,011 409,512 409,512 o 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 638,484 668,687 3,596 3,596 a) 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 117,165 106,639 22,301 22,301 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 85,399 88,879 10,367 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,221 15,927 13 13 coo 123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 122,121 122,095 6,951 6,951 ii 125 -Real Estate Tax 2 3,315,960 3,403,440 23,403 23,403 >+ 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 * 4,223,096 4,331,330 197,574 197,574 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 3,070,510 3,212,613 6,718 6,718 0 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 245,632 258,750 (22,537) (22,537 136 - Parks Trust Fund 153,942 161,439 (7,497) (7,497 c 137- Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 1,109,907 1,161,079 6,606 6,606 t 138 - Sister City Commission 19,692 20,615 (202) (202 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 67,697 67,697 27,913 27,913 141 -Affordable and Supportive Housing Fd 255,878 248,240 21,312 21,312 V_ 142 - Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund (597,461) 8,710,438 (662,049) (662,049; 0 143 - Tree Fund 226,497 236,993 198 198 Total Special Revenue $ 15,758,161 $ 23,077,486 $ (592,673) $ (592,673 *$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 126 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding, as well as $1,000,000 U for the purchase of Open Space. ii ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW '' 0 2 CO) N O N BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 2 L ENTERPRISE M ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 2 FUNDS 3/31/2023 3/31/2023 Q1 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance E t 421 -Water Utility Fund $ 32,578,533 $ 9,703,042 $ 689,909 $ 689,909 422-Storm Utility Fund* 19,223,209 6,085,763 1,151,439 1,151,439 Q 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 63,944,318 14,975,696 1,500,483 1,500,483 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 847,053 847,053 3,093 3,093 411 -Combined Utility Operation 37,625 88,007 37,625 37,625 Total Enterprise Funds $ 116,630,738 $ 31,699,562 $ 3,382,549 $ 3,382,549 *$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding. *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 45 7.2.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- CITY-WIDE 3/31 /2023 3/31 /2023 Q1 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance Governmental Funds $ 27,759,496 $ 32,759,029 $ (7,824,770) $ (7,824,770 Enterprise Funds 116,630,738 31,699,562 3,382,549 3,382,549 Internal Services Fund 9,758,332 5,419,001 (599,997) (599,997 0 CL m Total City-wide Total $ 154,148,566 $ 69,877,591 $ (5,042,219) $ (5,042,219 Ta .v c ii 21 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 0 2 M N O N L V L BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 0 Q- INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 3/31 /2023 3/31 /2023 Q1 YTD W Fund Balance Cash Balance @ U c 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 9,126,813 $ 5,091,975 $ (269,014) $ (269,014 ii 512 -Technology Rental Fund 631,519 327,026 (330,983) (330,983 21 t Total Internal Service Funds $ 9,758,332 $ 5,419,001 $ (599,997) $ (599,997 c 0 Z CO) N O N t V L C� G r E L Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 46 7.2.b GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2022 2022 2023 2018 2019 2020 2021 Preliminary (Jan -March) (Jan -March) Beginning Fund Balance 10,273,342 11,233,279 15,552,188 13,868,744 15,915,322 15,915,322 11,643,670 Revenue Taxes 30,755,578 30,846,665 30,738,452 32,979,704 34,209,103 5,233,427 6,216,061 Licenses and permits 2,401,855 2,299,972 2,276,861 2,453,186 2,560,170 666,258 599,769 Intergovernmental 1,014,434 1,008,432 1,633,633 1,608,646 1,367,288 209,486 206,674 Charges for services 5,810,961 6,419,836 5,412,044 5,913,557 2,761,337 1,004,658 906,937 Fines and forfeitures 616,783 496,093 287,693 272,302 182,881 30,353 68,894 Interest earnings 273,228 573,806 265,627 122,257 (34,099) 77,194 17,046 Miscellaneous 931,495 587,882 322,816 347,519 368,221 69,412 135,064 Operating Revenues Nonoperating Revenues Transfers in Debt proceeds Sale of capital assets Insurance recoveries Total Revenue Expenditures General government Public safety Transportation Economic environment Mental and physical health Culture and recreation Debt service Capital outlay Operating Expenditures Nonoperating Expenditures Transfers out Debt refunding Total Expenditures Prior Period Adjustments Change in position 41,804,334 42,232,686 40,937,126 43,697,171 41,414,902 7,290,787 8,150,445 75,884 4,793,650 1,535,800 388,547 26,300 - - 5,273 - - - - - - 15,570 - 16,977 - 257,520 - - 41,901,061 47,026,336 42,489,903 44,085,718 41,698,721 7,290,787 8,150,445 10,288,694 11,565,563 12,514,526 11,866,885 9,844,859 3,476,815 4,484,428 22,585,212 23,036,185 23,759,212 22,765,260 26,117,663 6,803,024 7,900,455 4,779 5,012 5,012 2,088 - - - 1,460,763 1,562,702 1,675,334 1,991,624 2,278,849 576,185 596,330 178,859 164,888 147,957 84,642 38,676 3,122 3,605 4,331,806 4,158,397 3,732,644 4,341,658 4,930,157 1,090,831 1,506,388 197,694 197,967 296,624 60,228 321,989 - - 93,105 110,935 835,048 268,885 1,123,119 - 301,869 39,140,912 40,801,649 42,966,358 41,381,270 44,655,313 1,800,212 1,905,778 1,206,990 657,870 1,315,062 11,949,976 14,793,075 40,941,124 42,707,427 44,173,348 42,039,140 45,970,374 11,949,976 14,7931,075 959,937 4,318,909 (1,683,445) 2,046,578 (4,271,653) (4,659,190) (6,642,630) Ending Fund Balance 11,233,279 15,552,188 13,868,744 15,915,322 11,643,670 11,256,133 5,001,039 O 2 c R c U- 21 z c O 2 M N 0 N z tt L ca J a CO) N O N L_ M 2 C O C N s Q R:\Finance Committee\2023\Jan-Mar 2023 P&L 4/28/2023 Packet Pg. 47 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 ERP Update Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History The City currently uses Eden, a product from Tyler Technologies, as their financial accounting system. The City has used Eden for over 20 years, an extremely long time when it comes to financial systems. Tyler Technologies will be "sunsetting" the Eden system in 2027. We have begun the process to replace the Eden system and will be providing periodic updates. Staff Recommendation ERP Update only, no recommendation. Narrative Attached is the PPT presentation from the 5/9/2023 Finance Committee. Attachments: ERP—Status—Update May 9 Packet Pg. 48 Edmonds Finance Committee ERP Status Update May 9, 2023 d w ca a IL w w CD R CL N a w m E t c� Q Packet Pg. 49 Introduction: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is a software system that helps you run your entire business, supporting auti and processes in finance, human resources, manufacturing, supply chain, services, procurement, and more. Edmonds uses "Eden", a product from Tyler Technologies. Edmonds has been using the Eden at least 20 years. in use include: • Accounting (GL/AR/AP) • Fixed Assets • HR • Payroll • Business Licensing • Parcel Manager • Utility Billing • Payment Processing a W w CD CD CL _ CO a W W C E a Packet Pg. 50 Noteworthy • Eden will be End of Life (EOL) in May, 2027. • Upgrade from Eden to current product Tyler Munis • Tyler Technologies had 205 municipalities on Eden. 118 remain. 85 upgraded to Munis, 2 selected other products • Tyler Tech conversion team migrates 5 or 6 customers per quarter. • Upgrade project is scheduled schedule after a contract is executed. • Implementation timeline is 26-30 months. • Implementation is broken in the 3 areas. • Each area takes 9-12 months to complete • Each subsequent area is initiated 6 months into current area • Financials is first. • HR/Payroll is 2nd — begins 6 months after Financials begin • Utility Billing is 3rd Packet Pg. 51 Costs • • Implementation estimate: $800,000 • Implementation billed over the 26-30 month install process • Time and materials • Cloud platform 2x-3x more than current on -premise software per year in ongoing maintenance • Current Tyler software maintenance is © $103K per year. New customers are cloud only installs Cloud benefits • Integrates with Azure (Microsoft cloud) for authentication. Al • Edmonds already using Azure for MS 0365 • Hosted in AWS (Amazon Web Services) • Provides security against ransomware attacks in that system is not on premise • Can be accessed from remote locations to accommodate DR/BC (disaster recovery / business continuity) planning IL W W CD CD CL _ CO a W w a Packet Pg. 52 Next Steps • Tyler Technology will deliver within the next 2 weeks • List of currently used modules • Upgrade estimate based on currently used modul • City reviews module list to verify continued use and mi • Review available, non -utilized modules for potential ini • Example: HR onboarding Packet Pg. 53 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Approval of Special Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2023 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Recommendation Approval of Council Committee Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: E050923 Special Packet Pg. 55 8.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Will Chen, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER DRAFT MINUTES May 9, 2023 STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council special virtual online meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Tibbott. 3. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) At 6:30 p.m., the city council convened in executive session for approximately 10 minutes to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). The executive session concluded at 6:40 p.m. 4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting was reconvened at 6:42 p.m. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Chen and Mayor Nelson. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 9, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 56 8.1.a TOLLING AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS FOR RECOVERY OF FEES AND POSSIBLE AUTHORIZATION OF LAWSUIT TO PRESERVE FRANCHISE RIGHTS COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO PASS THE RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE TOLLING AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 9, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 57 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Approval of Council Committee Minutes Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Recommendation Approval of the most recent Council Committee Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: PSPHSP050923 FC050923 PPW050923 Packet Pg. 58 8.2.a PUBLIC SAFETY, PLANNING, HUMAN SERVICES & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING May 9, 2023 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Vivian Olson (Chair) Dave Turley, Admin. Serv. Dir. Councilmember Jenna Nand Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Council President Neil Tibbott (ex-officio) Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online PSPHSP Committee meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council Conference Room, 212 — 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, at 3:30 p.m. by Councilmember Olson. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Committee Updates • UDdate/Discussion on Process for Code Updates Reauested or Identified by Council Ms. McLaughlin reported a code modernization team, comprised of a senior planner and a temporary planner, has been working on minor code amendment packages and major code amendments. A methodology was created to prioritize amendments and the team is in the process of applying it to existing projects to create an updated schedule. She offered to share the schedule next week. Questions and discussion followed regarding prioritizing environmental items, ECDC amendments vs. ECC amendments, ability for councilmembers to move forward ECC amendments (noise ordinance and chicken ordinance), impetus for a chicken ordinance, chicken husbandry, roosters, and an economic justice component in a chicken ordinance. 2. Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Grant Agreement with Housing Hope Ms. McLaughlin explained the intent of the CHIP grant is to support new affordable housing projects by providing infrastructure funding to make critical connections. The City in partnership with Housing Hope applied for the CHIP grant in 2022 and were awarded $1.3 million. The City has a minimal role in the grant, acting as a pass -through entity and reviewing and submitting required documentation provided by Housing Hope to Department of Commerce. Housing Hope will do the majority of the administration of the grant including hiring a third party reviewer to provide accountability. Council approval is required as it is over the $100,000 authority. Questions and discussion followed regarding grant requirements and the City's administrative costs. The committee requested the cost of City administration be identified as a grant expenditure. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda. 3. Proposal to Change from an Annual to a Biennial Budget Mr. Turley reviewed adopting a biennial budget: • Noteworthy discussion points o The city will be replacing our Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system during the next 2-3 years. We will be discussing the process with council soon. A decision needs to be made Packet Pg. 59 8.2.a 05/09/23 PSPHSP Committee Minutes, Page 2 about whether the new ERP should be configured for an annual budget or a biennial budget before the selection is made. o Operating under a biennial budget instead of annual budget frees up hundreds of hours in every odd -numbered year (e.g. 2025, 2027, 2029 etc.) It allows more time during the first 18 months of the biennium to monitor and evaluate the City's financial performance and condition. The consensus among finance people and councilmembers who are currently on a biennial budget is that it allows more time and opportunity for council to provide financial review. o A biennial budget schedule would allow time in the odd years to undertake major changes, like implementing "Budgeting By Priorities" for example o A biennial budget would have no negative impact on planning and budgeting for large capital projects (e.g. Civic Field, Highway 99 Revitalization) as these already involve multiple years and a biennial budget could actually be more practical when planning for multi -year projects. o The term for an appointed councilmember ends when the election is certified — this year it will be November 28. This causes a conflict by seating a new councilmember during budget deliberations and has the potential to happen in any odd year. Under a biennial budget the new budget is passed in even years so this conflict will never reoccur. o If we pass a biennial budget ordinance this year we will have a full year before we begin preparing the first biennial budget. This gives us ample time to adopt policies that will define what a biennial budget will look like for Edmonds. o Snohomish County on February 22 approved the change to a biennial budget. Council Chair Jared Mead called it a "positive step towards more responsible budgeting and forecasting." Council Member Nate Nehring said it will also "reduce the politics involved in the budget process" since it will occur outside of election years. Nehring and fellow Council Member Megan Dunn proposed the ordinance together and both said the change will improve overall efficiency (from a February 24 article in the Everett Herald by Kayla J. Dunn) o Additional information and sample budget preparation schedule in packet. Staff recommendation: Considering that this has been discussed several times in committee meetings, at length in full council as recently as March 7, and again at length by full council during the budget retreat on April 28, staff's recommendation is that the biennial budget ordinance be placed on Consent on the May 16 city council meeting. Questions and discussion followed regarding how policies will be reflected in new ERP system, configuration of the ERP, the financial committee overseeing policies, and preparation of the biennial budget ordinance by the city attorney. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 4. Meadowdale Neighborhood Annexation Discussion Councilmember Olson explained this neighborhood has requested annexation to Edmonds. Mr. Turley said revenue information such as the property tax base can be obtained from Snohomish County. He was unsure about additional services that would need to be provided such as street repairs, police, etc. Councilmember Olson advised it is 45-48 houses. Now that the neighborhood has submitted a petition, staff involvement is needed regarding how/when to respond, next steps for council, timing, etc. Questions and discussion followed regarding determining the fiscal and infrastructure impacts of annexation, other areas being considered for annexation, converting from septic to city sewer, proximity of the neighborhood to Perrinville Creek, determining next steps now that a petition has been filed, information available from Lynnwood regarding annexing this neighborhood, and unincorporated areas not subject to HB 1110. Committee recommendation: Council President Tibbott will work with the administration on a timeline for gathering information. Packet Pg. 60 8.2.a 05/09/23 PSPHSP Committee Minutes, Page 3 5. Public Drug Use Issue Councilmember Nand read her response to Tamara Nelson's May 8, 2023 letter to the editor questioning why Mayor Nelson did not sign the Snohomish County mayors' letter supporting Ordinance 23-046. Councilmember Nand's response stated her opinion that the proposed country drug ordinance was premature due to Governor Inslee's request for a special session to negotiate a fix for the State Supreme Court's Blake decision, and advocated for a humane response to people experiencing drug addiction and homelessness. Councilmember Olson relayed a comment from a state senator that the special session may be premature. Discussion followed regarding other cities that are adopting public drug use ordinances, drug use as a public health crisis, increasing capacity for treatment, drafting a resolution articulating concerns and asking the state to provide clear guidance about navigating public drug use, potential for public drug use near bridge housing on Highway 99, showing compassion to people experiencing this health crisis, prohibiting public use as a way to curb use, and shelters with anti -loitering rules. Committee recommendation: Draft a resolution. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:21 p.m. Packet Pg. 61 8.2.b FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING May 9, 2023 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Susan Paine Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Council President Neil Tibbott (ex-officio) Brian Tuley, Information Services Manager Councilmember Vivian Olson Scott Passey, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council Finance Committee meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council Conference Room, 212 — 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, at 5:30 p.m. by Councilmember Paine. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Committee Updates • Utility Rate Studv Prior to 2024 Budaet Process Councilmember Paine provided an update from Mr. Antillon, the utility rate study will be brought to city council for a decision between June and August. 2. March 2023 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Turley reviewed: 4- • Sales Tax is up $114,851 from this point in time last year. ° o Sales Tax is not expected to grow at the same rate it has in the past. 'o • Gas Utility Tax is up $47,783. a • Telephone Utility Tax is down $(38,165) from this time last year. Most February telephone Q utility tax payments that are normally recorded in March were recorded on 4/4. M • Building Plan Review and Inspection Fees are up $82,333 from this point in time last year, c Building Permits are down $(79,833), and Engineering Fees and Charges are down $(55,549). c Development Services revenues overall are down a total of $(65,121) from this point in time last year. • Parks & Recreation Program Fees are up $44,598 from this point in time last year. a • Total Interest Earnings for all funds are down a total of $(50,731) from this point in time last year; Fund 001 interest earnings are down $(67,881). a • We have received $120,467 more in interest with the LGIP from this point in time last year, Q and $117,193 more in interest with the SCIP from this point in time last year for a total of $237,660. We also took $5 million out of the SCIP in April which we reinvested at higher yields. We will take another $5 million out of the SCIP in May. • YTD Sales Tax Revenues for the 3 months ended March 31 $114,851 ahead of last year, and $73,749 under budget o Breakdown by business category of the change in Sales Tax revenue for March 2023 compared to March 2022 Packet Pg. 62 8.2.b 05/09/23 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 Change in Sales Taa: n—nue: -\T—k 2023 c..q- ed to Vlaech 2022 Enive.CJDuvkivg LBusuess Sm sees Other Retu]Food Srorc AWonatieY Repeu Auwsmmt @ Reantiw Halth & Pmwa1 Case Attommodecav Mam.fschvivg Oaw4ve Ca®tuexatieus "hiug eud ARnwsies Mix Redil n7,alewP re.de [5_50A00) 4v • YTD Sales Tax Revenues by Grnun Sales Tax Analysis By Group Current Period: March 2023 Last 12 Months Total $11,372,778 Retad F-d SI— Retail Anmtm — $W196 Auwrmtiv--e Re $2,759,56 ;245,798 Manufactvrmg Business Sen. 9128.633 31,200.177 C®sallne S4 Acco®datio a 554,i59 £atmg & D�kg Cu�susawus 51,3W 376 $24165 Wb.o sak Tndc SW563 / IT-"&Persmal Care Mist Rend- C�.•o-uctiou T nl.ns $2,072986 Am.sacrnl & $l M8 799 7 Othns 5735988 Resru— M,736 Ckthng and Acc —i. $379964 L'S— • Total Annual Sales Tax Revenues from 2010 through 2022, plus projection for 2023 Sales Tax: 2010-2022 Actual 2023 Projected 51x,OW,000 sto n0o no0 saaoo �a ■ ■ ■ sc.uoo.hoo so.nno.hoh sz�aoo, s . arnsi . Pteleuca • Combined Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues from 2010 through 2022, plus projection for 2023 $36,00.600 p5.�.M $26.000,600 SIS.000.000 Sto,om,oho SS,000.000 5- 20LO 2011 2OL2 2013 20LA 20L5 2016 W17 2016 1615 20D MI 302E —3 ■ Prop Tax ■ Sales Tax a Packet Pg. 63 8.2.b 05/09/23 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3 Questions and discussion followed regarding why interest earnings are down, changes in how sales tax on internet sales is collected, sharing information about changes in sales tax revenue with the EDC and Chamber, and identifying ways to increase revenues. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda. 3. ERP Update Mr. Tuley reviewed: Introduction o Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is a software system that helps you run your entire business, supporting automation and processes in fiance, HR, manufacturing, supply chain, services, procurement and more. o Edmonds uses "Eden," a product from Tyler Technologies. Edmonds has been using Eden at least 20 years. Modules in use include accounting (GL/AR/AP), fixed assets, HR, payroll, business licensing, parcel manager, utility billing, payment processing o Eden will be End of Life (EOL) in May 2027 o Upgrade from Eden to current product Tyler Munis o Tyler Technologies had 205 municipalities on Eden, 118 remain, 85 upgraded to Munis, 2 selected other products o Tyler Tech conversion team migrates 5 or 6 customer per quarter o Upgrade project is scheduled after a contract is executed o Implementation timeline is 26-30 months ■ Implementation is broken into 3 areas ■ Each area takes 9-12 months to complete ■ Each subsequent area is initiated 6 months into current area 1. Financials 2. HR/Payroll begins 6 months after financials begin 3. Utility billing Costs o Implementation estimate: $800,00 ■ Implementation billed over the 26-30 month install process - Time and materials ■ Cloud platform 2x-3x more than current on -premise software per year in ongoing maintenance - Current Tyler software maintenance is $103k/year New customers are cloud only installs o Cloud benefits ■ Integrates with Azure (Microsoft Cloud) for authentication - Edmonds already using Azure for MS 0365 ■ Hosted in AWS (Amazon Web Services) ■ Provides security against ransomware attacks in that system is not on premise ■ Can be accessed from remote locations to accommodate DR/BC (disaster recovery/business continuity) planning Next Steps o Tyler Technology will deliver within the next 2 weeks • List of currently used modules ■ Upgrade estimate based on currently used modules o City reviews module list to verify continued use and migration o Review available, non -utilized modules for potential inclusion ■ Example: HR onboarding M N 6D 0 LO 0 U u_ r c a� E a Packet Pg. 64 8.2.b 05/09/23 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 4 Questions and discussion followed regarding the cost of ongoing maintenance, ability to eliminate on - premise servers, new ERP reducing staff time and downtime, the need to execute a contract to get on Tyler's upgrade schedule, adding modules, departments most impacted, when the contract will be presented to council, and designing the system for the future. Committee recommendation: Update. Add PowerPoint to Received for Filing. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. M N CD O LO O U U- r- 0 E t U R r w Q Packet Pg. 65 8.2.c PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING May 9, 2023 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Dave Teitzel (Chair) Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Rob English, City Engineer Council President Neil Tibbott (ex-officio) Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Councilmember Vivian Olson Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager Scott Passey, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council PPW Committee meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council Conference Room, 212 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, at 7:30 p.m. by Councilmember Teitzel. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Committee Updates • Waste Water Treatment Plant Status Mr. Antillon reported the project continues to be a challenge including a clogged pipe this week. A final agreed -to -amount with the additional cost the City and its partners will be responsible for is still being negotiated. A buyer for the biochar has not been identified. The plant is anticipated to be operational in June. Questions and discussion followed regarding challenges with moving the liquified ash through the system. • Enhancing Safety of Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Westgate Intersection Mr. Hauss reported bicycle sensors will be considered in the final design. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Seattle intersections where a right turn on red is restricted to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety. Mr. English advised when a pedestrian activates the walk signal, southbound permissive left turns (flashing yellow left turn arrow) will not be allowed. • Abandoned House at 18704 80th Avenue West Councilmember Teitzel reported there are squatters and illegal activity at the house, neighbors are complaining, it has been an ongoing code enforcement issue, and the house needs to be secured. Mr. Antillon advised he has inquired with planning, but has not received an answer. Councilmember Teitzel advised he will pursue the matter with planning. • ADA Parking Spaces at Fishing Pier Parking Lot Councilmember Teitzel referred to two ADA parking spaces with buckled pavement. Mr. Antillon reported the street crew did a temporary repair to remove trip hazards and install signs. Staff is working on a new agreement with the Port (previous agreement expired) to share the cost of repairing/paving the parking lot. • Library Roof Councilmember Teitzel observed the City has been patching the roof for years; he asked when the planters and membrane will be removed and a long term repair made. Mr. Antillon advised the roof is on the 2028 CIP. Leaks are under control now. Discussion followed regarding where the leaks were and the contract with Sno-Isle that includes a 50/50 cost sharing for the roof and a $300,000 spending cap. 2. Presentation of LAG Agreement with KPG Psomas, Inc. for the Main St Overlay Project Packet Pg. 66 8.2.c 05/09/23 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2 Mr. English reported the City secured a $750,000 federal grant in 2020 through the PSRC and ICC process for an overlay of Main St. between 6th and 811 Ave as well as upgrading ADA pedestrian curb ramps and pavement striping/marking. Water and sewer lines in this section will be replaced this summer and this project will follow next year. The City issued an RFQ in February 2023, two firms responded, KPG and CM Design Group, and KPG was selected based on their qualifications and experience. The scope of work is included in the packet to take the project from predesign through final design. The fee is still being negotiated. The overall budget for design including staff time is $150,000- $160,000; the fee is anticipated to be approximately $130,000. Questions and discussion followed regarding 20% local match provided by the 125 REET Fund, whether bike lanes will be considered in the design, and a suggestion to do a survey about bike lanes. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 3. 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Mr. Hauss provided an overview of the 2024-2029 Six -Year TIP, advising a public hearing is scheduled next week. The RCW requires cities update the TIP annually by June 1. The TIP contains significant transportation projects the City plans to undertake in next six years. The first three years (2024-2026) are financially constrained and last three years (2027-2029) are unconstrained. Revenue sources include federal, state and local funds. He highlighted projects in the TIP including new projects (not in the 2023-2028 TIP), projects with secured grant funding (shown in last year's TIP) and projects with recently secured grants): • Preservation/Maintenance Projects o Annual Street preservation program o Main Street Overlay from 6th Ave to 8th Ave (secured grant funding) o Olympic View Dr Overlay from 196th St SW to Talbot Road (recently secured grant) o Citywide Signal Improvements o Signal Upgrades: Puget Dr @ OVD, 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW, and Main St @ 31 • Safety/Capacity Projects o SR-99 Revitalization & Gateway projects Stages 2, 3 and 4 (secured grant funding) 0 761h Ave W @ 2201h St SW Intersection Improvements (secured grant funding) o SR-104 ITS Adaptive System (secured grant funding) • Pedestrian Projects o Elm Way Walkway from 81h Ave S to 91h Ave S (combined with Citywide Bicycle Improvements) 0 84th Ave W Walkway from 238th St SW to 234th St SW (recently secured grant) o Green Streets — 2361h St SW Walkway from 84th Ave W to Highway 99 (recently secured grant) 0 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancements Walkway (10% design) o ADA Curb Ramp Improvements o SR-104 @ 761h Ave W Non -motorized Transportation Improvements o Pedestrian Safety Program o Downtown Lighting Improvements o Citywide Lighting Improvements o SR-104/Pine St Walkway o Citywide Bicycle Improvements (secured grant funding) o SR-104 @ 100th Ave W Bicycle Improvements • Traffic Calming/Non-motorized Transportation Safety Projects o Traffic Calming Program/Non-Motorized Transportation Safety • Ferry/Waterfront Project o Waterfront Emergency Response Study (new project) Packet Pg. 67 8.2.c 05/09/23 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3 Mr. English advised staff is working on a grant application for the infrastructure bill. One of the first steps is developing a safety plan that meets the infrastructure bill's requirements; that plan will be added to the TIP. Questions and discussion followed regarding past practice of first bringing the TIP to council followed by a public hearing, length of the 84t" Avenue walkway project, whether utility undergrounding can be funded by grants, bid opening for the Elm Way Walkway project, traffic calming projects, school zone speed cameras, REET funds allocated to streets and park capital projects, addition of the Waterfront Emergency Response Study in 2023 budget deliberations, developing code related to Green Streets, speed humps/tables to address speeding on Olympic View Drive and on 76th, cost of Green Streets, grant programs for Green Streets, concern with including walkways with Green Streets due to the increased cost, use of ARPA funds for Green Streets, chip seal and slurry seal as part of pavement preservation program, citywide signal improvements, whether the Walnut Street Walkway from 6t" to 7t" could be deferred since there is already a sidewalk on one side, new projects that will be added to the TIP once the transportation plan is updated, funding for traffic calming, and partnering with the Port on waterfront emergency response. Committee recommendation: Public hearing on May 16 4. Presentation of Supplemental Services Agreement for The Blueline Group (Blueline) to be the Consultant to Provide Capital Protects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2023 Mr. English reported the City issued an RFQ last year for a 2-year program for on -call construction management and inspection services for the capital improvement program. Council approved a contract in May 2022 for $266,000. There is a need for part-time inspection on the 2023 utility replacement project. The supplement is $51,000 plus carryforward from last year's contract, funded by the water and sewer utility funds. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda. 5. 5-ft Dedication for 192nd St SW Right -of -Way Adjacent to 9009 192nd St SW Mr. English reported a 2-lot subdivision is proposed on the property. The Official Street Map calls for 5- foot right-of-way dedication which the applicant will provide. The Sidewalk Comprehensive Plan identifies a sidewalk on 192nd Street; the 5-foot sidewalk will be built as part of the frontage improvements. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 6. Resolution Increasing Vehicle License Fee - Transportation Benefit District Mr. Antillon explained in the short time he has been with the City, there is a high demand for funding for this work. The council has given direction on how the TDB fees can be used and those are supplemented by the General Fund. He reviewed: • Authority o RCW 82.80.140 and 36.73.065 o Code authority 3.65.030 Functions of the city • Lynnwood and Shoreline charge $40 • Revenue & Statement Year Revenue 2012 $640,944 2013 $670,435 2014 $623,111 Packet Pg. 68 8.2.c 05/09/23 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 4 2015 $687,421 2016 $701,467 2017 $692,589 2018 $716,013 2019 $689,668 2020 $719,684 2021 $717,707 2022 1 $693,591 • Infrastructure growth o Pedestrian Safety Program ■ 2019-2023: 32 Locations o Signal upgrades o Backlog of maintenance (ADA) ■ Increased demand for sidewalk work ■ ADA issues ■ Backlog is growing Pavement preservation program o 2015 PCI: 71 (very good) ■ Recommended investment to maintain that PCI was $2.5 million 0 2022 PCI: 65 (good) ■ Recommended investment to maintain that PCI was $2.5 million o Average annual investment since 2015 is $1.5 million o Current recommended investment to main status quo is $2.8 million o Annual budget: $1.0 million (35% of recommended) Staff recommendation is increase TBD fee to $40 to fund more projects Questions and discussion followed regarding revenue the $20 increase would generate annually, concern with a 100% increase when interest rates are increasing and a recession is possible, recent increases in property tax, poor timing, regressive tax, whether the TBD fee could be increased incrementally, and adjusting the fee for inflation. Committee recommendation: Full council. 7. Public Safety Parking Area Safety Barrier Protect Mr. Sullivan advised the contract and design from Transpo came to council last year. This item is to authorize the mayor to sign the contract which is over the $100,000 limit. Questions and discussion followed regarding the amount originally budgeted for this project, initial project is the fence only, having a local vendor design an automatic gate system, installing the fence first followed by a gate system in the future, historic pedestrian use of the parking lot versus changing needs of public safety, whether the initial budget included electronic gates, and whether all the existing parking is needed with take-home police vehicles. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 8. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q1 Accomplishments Committee recommendation: Received for Filing. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Packet Pg. 69 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Lori Palmer Background/History Approval of payroll checks #65646 through #65653 dated May 5, 2023 for $9,539.74, payroll direct deposit for $826,816.32, benefit checks #65654 through #65659 and wire payments for $748,139.24 for the pay period of April 16, 2023 through April 30, 2023. Staff Recommendation Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 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 payments. Attachments: benefit checks summary 04-30-2023 payroll earnings summary 04-30-2023 Packet Pg. 70 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,094 - 04/16/2023 to 04/30/2023 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 65654 05/05/2023 bpas BPAS 5,872.10 0.00 65655 05/05/2023 chap1 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 175.00 0.00 65656 05/05/2023 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 106.96 0.00 65657 05/05/2023 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 6,494.24 0.00 65658 05/05/2023 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 4,147.28 0.00 65659 05/05/2023 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 3,037.28 0.00 19,832.86 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3512 05/05/2023 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 385,344.81 0.00 3515 05/05/2023 aflac AFLAC 3,735.86 0.00 3518 05/05/2023 us US BANK 154,373.47 0.00 3519 05/05/2023 mebt WTRISC FBO #N317761 146,263.41 0.00 3520 05/05/2023 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 7,123.00 0.00 3521 05/05/2023 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 30,661.33 0.00 3522 05/05/2023 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 804.50 0.00 728,306.38 0.00 Grand Totals: 748,139.24 0.00 8.3.a r Q 5/3/2023 Packet Pg. 71 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,094 (04/16/2023 to 04/30/2023) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 9.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 583.75 30,558.66 122 VACATION VACATION 853.75 49,294.08 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 100.00 5,141.81 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 40.00 1,980.12 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 136.25 7,241.01 128 HOLIDAY Holiday Bank WWTP 9.00 350.49 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 105.50 5,057.95 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 84.00 7,039.63 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 108.00 5,795.75 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 142.15 9,116.46 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 84.00 7,903.63 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 700.00 9,916.62 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 300.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICAL 0.00 4,866.36 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,022.50 921,935.92 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 7,431.19 194 SICK Emergency Sick Leave 16.00 1,051.30 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 124.00 8,014.16 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 10.00 605.59 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 4.50 217.83 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 42.00 3,084.30 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 5.00 546.51 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 653.25 54,909.41 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 12.50 1,156.86 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 616.48 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 2,567.51 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 60.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 197.25 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 205.29 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 238.28 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 100.79 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 201.58 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 113.61 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 92.15 05/03/2023 Packet Pg. 72 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,094 (04/16/2023 to 04/30/2023) }, Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 138.08 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 771.32 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 837.60 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 412.34 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 8,415.82 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 348.87 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 36.00 0.00 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 138.08 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 98.73 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 871.73 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 1,471.88 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 1,836.83 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,349.83 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 547.56 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 346.28 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1% 0.00 1,066.90 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 2,516.29 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 562.08 Iq8 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 8% 0.00 337.04 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 138.08 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 1,261.00 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 144.00 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 62.00 3,100.36 pfmv VACATION Paid Familv Medical Vacation 50.00 5,096.60 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,172.71 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 2,669.19 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 219.02 slb SICK SICK LEAVE BUY BACK 308.73 19,100.60 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 7.00 0.00 st REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pay 0.00 164.27 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 219.02 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 388.68 vab VACATION VACATION ADD BACK 5.81 0.00 05/03/2023 Packet Pg. 73 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,094 (04/16/2023 to 04/30/2023) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 21, 719.94 Total Net Pay: Amount $1,204,248.12 $836,356.06 8.3.b 05/03/2023 Packet Pg. 74 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #257318 through #257406 dated May 4, 2023 for $360,488.78, checks #257407 through #257499 dated May 11, 2023 for $1,191,572.30 and wire payment of $3,493.17. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 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 payments. Attachments: Claim checks 05-04-23 Agenda Claim checks 05-11-23 Agenda Packet Pg. 75 8.4.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 5/4/2023 10:21:39AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 257318 5/4/2023 2,226.29 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 257319 5/4/2023 142.55 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 257320 5/4/2023 762.45 065568 ALLWATER INC 257321 5/4/2023 146.83 065568 ALLWATER INC 257322 5/4/2023 403.07 077293 AMERICAN DIVERSITY 257323 5/4/2023 2,380.48 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 257324 5/4/2023 435.47 071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN 257325 5/4/2023 2,002.00 078763 ARTIFACT 257326 5/4/2023 25,000.00 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 257327 5/4/2023 39.34 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 257328 5/4/2023 1,272.43 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST 257329 5/4/2023 1,461.74 079030 BAGAN, RICK 257330 5/4/2023 143.63 076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E 257331 5/4/2023 1,260.00 079279 BALLARD, KATIE 257332 5/4/2023 586.90 073903 BENS CLEANER SALES INC 257333 5/4/2023 145.91 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 257334 5/4/2023 17,404.28 079262 BLUE WINGS EVENTS LLC 257335 5/4/2023 366.90 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 257336 5/4/2023 32,652.40 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 257337 5/4/2023 18.00 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 257338 5/4/2023 802.11 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 257339 5/4/2023 1,713.25 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 257340 5/4/2023 418.36 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 257341 5/4/2023 171.00 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 257342 5/4/2023 42,307.00 075331 COCKRUM, MARK 257343 5/4/2023 295.80 064369 CODE PUBLISHING LLC 257344 5/4/2023 830.00 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 257345 5/4/2023 398.81 072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC 257346 5/4/2023 9,505.80 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 257347 5/4/2023 891.14 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS LLC 257348 5/4/2023 622.00 076172 DK SYSTEMS 257349 5/4/2023 5,761.48 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 257350 5/4/2023 97.19 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 257351 5/4/2023 649.05 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 257352 5/4/2023 277.48 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 257353 5/4/2023 563.20 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 257354 5/4/2023 2,451.70 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 257355 5/4/2023 3,177.50 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 257356 5/4/2023 149.64 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 257357 5/4/2023 2,464.42 079241 FIREHOSEDIRECT 257358 5/4/2023 187.34 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 257359 5/4/2023 766.12 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 257360 5/4/2023 594.68 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 257361 5/4/2023 200.00 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 257362 5/4/2023 2,102.88 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 257363 5/4/2023 200.70 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 257364 5/4/2023 261.24 076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC 257365 5/4/2023 260.00 066585 KINNEY, DON 257366 5/4/2023 1,316.31 078946 KITCHENS, KYLEE 257367 5/4/2023 390.00 079273 LANDGRAF, SUSAN I 257368 5/4/2023 100.00 072566 LEDER II, DAVID 257369 5/4/2023 136.00 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 257370 5/4/2023 70.00 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 76 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 5/4/2023 10:21:39AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 257371 5/4/2023 780.00 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 257372 5/4/2023 999.00 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC 257373 5/4/2023 4,013.00 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 257374 5/4/2023 160.88 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 257375 5/4/2023 328.25 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 257376 5/4/2023 2,223.36 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 257377 5/4/2023 36,912.42 027450 PAWS 257378 5/4/2023 1,788.00 072507 PEACE OF MIND OFFICE SUPPORT 257379 5/4/2023 344.00 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 257380 5/4/2023 290.40 073231 POLYDYNE INC 257381 5/4/2023 37,004.24 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 257382 5/4/2023 19,220.28 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC 257383 5/4/2023 2,193.70 068657 ROBERT HALF 257384 5/4/2023 2,310.00 079019 ROOT AND LIMB YOGA 257385 5/4/2023 2,068.20 079280 SCHUMACHER, EMMA 257386 5/4/2023 27.56 075486 SHIPLEY, BRAD 257387 5/4/2023 435.60 078950 SNIFFEN, ROD 257388 5/4/2023 383.50 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV 257389 5/4/2023 170.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 257390 5/4/2023 9,279.08 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 257391 5/4/2023 1,165.67 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 257392 5/4/2023 3,431.44 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 257393 5/4/2023 429.81 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 257394 5/4/2023 2,533.95 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI 257395 5/4/2023 1,921.15 078914 TEAMVIEWER GMBH 257396 5/4/2023 2,853.11 063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC 257397 5/4/2023 165.75 075025 THE BRANDING IRON LLC 257398 5/4/2023 353.60 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 257399 5/4/2023 2,458.58 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 257400 5/4/2023 404.42 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 257401 5/4/2023 359.91 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 257402 5/4/2023 13,650.82 075155 WALKER MACY LLC 257403 5/4/2023 38,656.08 075283 WAVE 257404 5/4/2023 816.00 063008 WSDOT 257405 5/4/2023 84.40 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 257406 5/4/2023 1,289.75 GrandTotal : 360,488.78 Total count: 89 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 77 8.4.b apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 5/11/2023 8:23:49AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 257407 5/11/2023 127,608.00 065568 ALLWATER INC 257408 5/11/2023 114.92 001528 AM TEST INC 257409 5/11/2023 575.00 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 257410 5/11/2023 1,907.81 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 257411 5/11/2023 278.05 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 257412 5/11/2023 1,773.37 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 257413 5/11/2023 642.50 070591 B&H PHOTO VIDEO REMITTANCE 257414 5/11/2023 57.93 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 257415 5/11/2023 541.08 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 257416 5/11/2023 1,322.64 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 257417 5/11/2023 2,097.76 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 257418 5/11/2023 7,293.75 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC 257419 5/11/2023 10,191.75 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 257420 5/11/2023 800.99 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 257421 5/11/2023 76.58 019215 CITY OFLYNNWOOD 257422 5/11/2023 289,744.18 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 257423 5/11/2023 661.59 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 257424 5/11/2023 292.90 076107 COMPASS HEALTH 257425 5/11/2023 9,683.74 079283 CORNELIA BIRKLAND 257426 5/11/2023 287.64 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 257427 5/11/2023 326.56 079198 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC 257428 5/11/2023 475.15 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 257429 5/11/2023 662.40 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 257430 5/11/2023 186,787.57 047450 DEPTOF INFORMATION SERVICES 257431 5/11/2023 285.00 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 257432 5/11/2023 1,240.00 076172 DK SYSTEMS 257433 5/11/2023 3,021.43 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 257434 5/11/2023 39.76 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 257435 5/11/2023 406.64 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 257436 5/11/2023 831.88 076992 ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS 257437 5/11/2023 689.55 078799 EPIC GROUP 257438 5/11/2023 75.00 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 257439 5/11/2023 49.88 065427 FCS GROUP 257440 5/11/2023 7,457.50 079282 FORBEST PRODUCTS CO 257441 5/11/2023 3,363.90 011210 GC SYSTEMS 257442 5/11/2023 5,078.81 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 257443 5/11/2023 1,222.56 012199 GRAINGER 257444 5/11/2023 278.49 076542 GRANICUS 257445 5/11/2023 1,566.35 064528 HI -LINE ELECTRICAL 257446 5/11/2023 221.13 076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 257447 5/11/2023 2,674.54 061013 HONEY BUCKET 257448 5/11/2023 279.95 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 257449 5/11/2023 2,766.67 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 257450 5/11/2023 600.00 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 257451 5/11/2023 199.74 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC 257452 5/11/2023 1,438.26 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 257453 5/11/2023 861.99 075265 KBA INC 257454 5/11/2023 17,999.85 079069 KISHA POST 257455 5/11/2023 3,325.00 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 257456 5/11/2023 1,500.00 078360 LANGUAGE LINE SOLUTIONS 257457 5/11/2023 641.84 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 257458 5/11/2023 17.62 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 257459 5/11/2023 143.64 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 78 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 5/11/2023 8:23:49AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 257460 5/11/2023 10,462.50 079166 MADRONA LAW GROUP PLLC 257461 5/11/2023 324.50 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC 257462 5/11/2023 955.74 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 257463 5/11/2023 280.67 074556 MOTOE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 257464 5/11/2023 970.00 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INT'L & IDEALEASE 257465 5/11/2023 43.07 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 257468 5/11/2023 415.26 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 257466 5/11/2023 9,741.57 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 257467 5/11/2023 551.81 078127 OWENS PUMP & EQUIPMENT 257469 5/11/2023 1,350.67 072507 PEACE OF MIND OFFICE SUPPORT 257470 5/11/2023 312.00 074793 PETDATA INC 257471 5/11/2023 93.20 079209 PLANIT GEO INC 257472 5/11/2023 3,725.00 078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 257473 5/11/2023 600.00 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 257474 5/11/2023 1,730.42 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 257475 5/11/2023 457.12 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 257476 5/11/2023 1,638.75 077069 SEMACONNECT INC 257477 5/11/2023 1,941.03 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 257478 5/11/2023 26.71 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 257479 5/11/2023 356.77 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 257480 5/11/2023 21,479.11 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 257481 5/11/2023 37,370.04 079285 SNOHOMISH CO PROSECUTOR OFFICE 257482 5/11/2023 2,695.05 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 257483 5/11/2023 1,654.99 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 257484 5/11/2023 79,997.25 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 257485 5/11/2023 111.81 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 257486 5/11/2023 17,209.39 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC 257487 5/11/2023 2,460.00 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 257488 5/11/2023 1,370.64 071666 TETRA TECH INC 257489 5/11/2023 1,230.00 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 257490 5/11/2023 5,124.24 070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC 257491 5/11/2023 232.16 070774 ULINE INC 257492 5/11/2023 777.96 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 257493 5/11/2023 191.05 047605 WA ST TREASURER 257494 5/11/2023 168.40 078314 WASTE MGMT DISPOSAL SVC OF OR 257495 5/11/2023 191,078.98 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 257496 5/11/2023 22,788.25 077286 WSP USA INC 257497 5/11/2023 64,569.92 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 257498 5/11/2023 198.74 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 257499 5/11/2023 2,406.69 GrandTotal : 1,191,572.30 Total count: 93 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 79 8.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 PFD Board Candidate Approval Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History Per the Interlocal Agreement between the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) and the City of Edmonds, approval by the Edmonds City Council is required for new appointments to the PFD Board, and/or renewals of Board terms. Staff Recommendation Council had the opportunity to interview Mr. Grotheer earlier this evening. Staff respectfully recommends Mr. Grotheer's appointment via tonight's Consent Agenda. Narrative: N/A Packet Pg. 80 8.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Ordinance to Change to Biennial Budget Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History Edmonds Administration and Council have discussed moving from an annual to a biennial budget, and opinions have been very favorable for making this change. Doing so will require a Biennial Budget Ordinance to be passed by Council. Staff Recommendation Recommendation is to approve the Biennial Budget Ordinance as included in tonight's Council packet. Narrative: The city will be replacing our Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system during the next 2-3 years. A decision needs to be made about whether the new ERP should be configured for an annual budget or a biennial budget before the selection is made. There are several benefits to budgeting on a biennial basis. Operating under a Biennial Budget instead of an Annual Budget frees up hundreds of hours in every odd - numbered year - e.g., 2025, 2027, 2029, etc. It allows more time during the first 18 months of the biennium to monitor and evaluate the city's financial performance and condition. The consensus among finance people and council members who are currently on a biennial budget is that it allows more time and opportunity for the Council to provide financial review. A biennial budget schedule would allow time in the odd years to undertake major changes, like implementing "Budgeting by Priorities" for example. A biennial budget would have no negative impact on planning and budgeting for large capital projects (e.g., Civic Field, Highway 99 Revitalization) as these already involve multiple years, and a biennial budget would be more practical when planning for multi -year projects. The term for an appointed councilmember ends when the election is certified - this year it will be November 28. This causes a conflict by seating a new council member during budget deliberations and has the potential to happen in any odd year. Under a biennial budget the new budget is passed in even years, so this conflict will never reoccur. If we pass a biennial budget ordinance this year, we will have a full year before we begin preparing the first biennial budget. This gives us ample time to adopt policies that will define what a biennial budget will look like for Edmonds. Packet Pg. 81 8.6 Approving the Ordinance included in tonight's packet will allow us to move forward with implementation of the ERP system, and give us time to examine any new policies that Council may wish to enact before actual implementation. Thank you for your consideration. Attachments: 1 Biennial Budget Ordinance May 2023 Packet Pg. 82 8.6.a ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE 3793 WHICH REESTABLISHED A CALENDAR YEAR BUDGET; AND ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025. WHEREAS, by Chapter 35A.34, RCW, the state legislature has provided that the legislative body of any code city may by ordinance elect to have a two-year fiscal biennial budget in lieu of the annual budget which is otherwise provided for; and WHEREAS, Chapter 35A.34.040, RCW provides that such ordinance must be enacted at least six -months prior to commencement of the fiscal biennium; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds previously repealed adoption of the biennial budget process through Ordinance No. 3793 and has produced an annual budget since 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds finds it in the best interest of the city to reestablish a fiscal biennial budget process to be effective January 1, 2025; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 3793 Repealed. Ordinance 3793, which reestablished a calendar year budget, is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Establishment of a Biennium Budget. Pursuant to Chapter 35A.34.040, RCW, the City Council hereby establishes a biennial budget for the City of Edmonds, beginning with the biennium which begins January 1, 2025. The 2025-2026 Biennial Budget and all subsequent budgets shall be prepared, considered and adopted under the provisions of this ordinance and Chapter 35A.34, RCW that is hereby adopted by reference. Section 3. Mid -Biennial Review and Modification. Pursuant to Chapter 35A.34.130, RCW, the City Council hereby provides for a mid -biennial review and modification of the biennial budget. No sooner than eight (8) months after the start of the first year of the fiscal biennium, nor later than conclusion of the first year of the fiscal biennium, the Mayor shall prepare the proposed budget modification and shall provide for publication of notice of hearings consistent with publication of notices for adoption of other city ordinances. Such proposed modifications shall be sent to City Council members and shall be a public record and available to the public. Public hearings on the proposed budget modification shall be heard prior to the adoption of the ordinance modifying the biennial budget. At least seven days before said hearings, the Mayor shall distribute the proposed budget modification to members of the city council, with copies available to the public at City Hall. Packet Pg. 83 8.6.a Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto. 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. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY z r APPROVED AS TO FORM: Q OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 84 8.6.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _ day of May, 2023, 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE 3793 WHICH REESTABLISHED A CALENDAR YEAR BUDGET; AND ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _ day of May, 2023. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 85 8.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Approval of supplemental agreement for The Blueline Group (Blueline) to provide Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2023. Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On April 19, 2022 The Blueline Group was approved by City Council to be the consultant to provide Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2022 and 2023. On May 9, 2023, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to the consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve Supplemental Agreement. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in December, 2021 to hire a consultant to support City staff with construction management, engineering and inspection services for various City funded capital projects that are scheduled to begin construction in 2022 and 2023. The City received statements of qualifications from seven (7) engineering firms and the selection committee chose The Blueline Group to provide services during construction based on their qualifications, experience and approach. This agreement will allow Blueline to provide part-time inspection services for the 2023 Utility Replacement Project. The fee for the supplemental agreement is $51,136 and will be funded by the respective utility funds. The project will be managed by a City Capital Projects Manager. The consultant will assist the City's project manager by providing daily field inspections, review of materials delivered to the site for installation by the contractor, coordination of compaction and materials testing, verification of installation of materials and quantity tracking, and monitoring of the contractor's traffic control operations. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 86 8.7.a CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE NELSON 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Capital Project Construction Management, Engineering, and Inspection Services WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and The Blueline Group, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Capital Project Construction Management, Engineering, and Inspection Services, dated Mav 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified with regard to providing Capital Project Construction Management, Engineering, and Inspection Services, NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of May 11, 2022 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $266,600 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $51,136 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to anew total not -to -exceed amount of $317, 736($266 600 plus $51,136). 1.3 Exhibit A to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit A to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 87 8.7.a 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth in Supplemental Agreement No. 1 but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of CITY OF EDMONDS By: Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 20 CONSULTANT NAME By: Title: Packet Pg. 88 8.7.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 89 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE 8.7.a Project Name: Edmonds Construction Services Job #: 21-407 May 4, 2023 Project Description The Blueline Group, LLC ("Blueline") will provide additional requested construction administration and inspection services for the 2023 construction season as a supplement to the previous year's contract. The following projects ("Projects") are anticipated to be included as part of this scope: • 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project Task Summary Task 001 Management Reserve Task 002 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project Project Schedule Our Team shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed. Scope of Work Blueline's scope of work for the projects is outlined on the following pages. Each task shall be comprised of sub tasks A, B and/or C as outlined in the following pages. Any additional projects added to this scope of work will be assigned a new sequential number and have any combination of sub tasks A, B and/or C included. For 2023, only Construction Inspection services are currently anticipated. 1 Packet Pg. 90 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE 8.7.a Tasks Task 001 Management Reserve This task provides for unanticipated construction services deemed to be necessary during the course of the projects. The Management Reserve task shall only be used after obtaining written authorization from the City. Task 002 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project Blueline will provide part-time construction inspection services under subtask C for the 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project. This includes water, sewer and storm replacement or repair inspections at various locations throughout the City as described below: • Main St. from 6th Ave S to 9th Ave S (Water & Storm) • Main St. and 8th Ave S (Sewer) • Maple St from 9th Ave S to 10th Ave S • SR104/Edmonds Way • Various CIPP locations Subtask A Project Management (Not included in Task 002) This task is for general coordination and meetings on the projects, including: • Management of all tasks and staff for construction inspection services. • Communication with the City of Edmonds regarding the construction. • Budget tracking and providing weekly updates to the City. • Preparation of consultant monthly invoices for work performed during the previous month, including any pertinent backup materials. Deliverables: Weekly budgeting spreadsheet. 2 Packet Pg. 91 8.7.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Subtask B Construction Administration (Not included in Task 002) Blueline will provide construction administration services for the projects during the construction period. Services under this task are anticipated to include any of the following items as budget allows as requested by each City Project Manager: • Review plans and specifications and visit the site prior to the preconstruction meeting. • Attend preconstruction meeting and send out minutes. • Review and approve Contractor progress schedules. • Prepare and review contract pay estimates. • Prepare force account and change orders, as needed. • Prepare and submit weekly reports (Weekly Statement of Working Days and Project Progress Chart). • Log affidavits, intents, and certified payroll. • Provide project filing. • Provide force account and RFI log. • Coordinate changes to drawings or specifications as necessary to respond to filed conditions (as needed — coordinating with City Project Manager). • Monitor construction to determine contractor compliance and prepare associated documentation. • General consultation and coordination on an as needed basis to address construction questions. • Assist with preparing punch lists and final inspection. • Prepare recommendation of project acceptance. • Attend and conduct construction meetings as required. Provide meeting minutes to attendees. • Additional construction inspection services and project management, as needed. Deliverables: Monthly Pay Estimates, Change Orders, Force Account, meeting minutes and all other construction documentation. Assumptions: The City or Design Engineering Firm will prepare as built drawings based on the as built redlines. The City will review material submittals and maintain a submittal log. 3 Packet Pg. 92 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE 8.7.a Subtask C Construction Inspection (Included in task 002) Blueline will provide construction inspection services for the projects during the construction period Services under this task are anticipated to include: • Review plans/specifications and visit the site. • Review materials delivered to the site to review compliance with City approved submittals. • Provide inspection of all aspects of the construction activity to review Contractor compliance with the contract plans and specifications. • Coordinate compaction and materials testing with the testing agency selected by the City under a separate contract. • Coordinate all testing with the City and Contractor for the projects. • Coordinate final connections with the City and Contractor for water main projects. • Record and report the progress of the construction operations to the City throughout the duration of the contract. • Furnish the City with verification of all quantities of materials. • Provide final project inspection including punch lists. • Provide as -built redlines to supplement the Contractor's redlines. • Monitor the Contractor's traffic control operations to review compliance with City approved traffic control plan. • Be responsive to requests from citizens and businesses. Deliverables: Inspector's Daily Report, records of Force Account work, weekly tabulation of quantities placed (including truck tickets), construction progress photos. Assumptions: The City or Design Engineering Firm will prepare as built drawings based on the as built redlines. The Contractor will provide construction staking for the projects. The City will provide purity testing (with coordination provided by Inspector). The City will review materials submittal and maintain a submittal log. Projects include 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project (S weeks). 4 Packet Pg. 93 8.7.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE General Assumptions and Notes • Scope and fees outlined above are based on the Project Understanding included with this proposal as well as the following information (any changes to these documents may result in changes to the fees): o Correspondence prior to the effective date of this Agreement. • The following items are not anticipated to be necessary and are not included in this proposal: o Structural, Environmental, Geotechnical, Materials Testing or Transportation Engineering services. o Gas main relocation coordination. o Other dry utility relocation coordination. o Staking services. • Obtaining any offsite easements or right -of -entry including permanent easements (if required) will be the responsibility of the Client. • Blueline will not pay any Agency fees on behalf of the Client. This includes any fees associated with permits and easements. • The fees stated above do not include reimbursable expenses such as large format copies (larger than legal size), mileage, and plots. These will appear under a separate task called EXPENSES. • Time and expense items are based on Blueline's current hourly rates. • These fees stated above are valid if accepted within 30 days of the date of the proposal. • The City and Blueline will negotiate an adjustment to the fee schedule for tasks not started within a year of contract execution. • Project stops/starts and significant changes to the Project Schedule may result in changes to the fees provided above and a separate fee proposal will be provided. • If the Client provides written requests for Blueline's assistance in complying with any public records request, including without limitation providing copies of documents and communications, Client will pay Blueline's hourly fees and costs incurred in providing such assistance at then - current rates. Such fees and costs will be billed under Task 001. 5 Packet Pg. 94 © Edmonds Construction Services Job Number: 21-407 Prepared By: Grace Garwin, EIT Date: 5/4/2023 Checked By: Rob Dahn,PE Senior Project Engineer Construction Manager Inspector Task # Base Tasks $240/hr $200/hr $155/hr Total Original Supplemental Total Fee Fee Type Hours Hours Hours Hours Contract Services 8.7.a e- 7 001 Management Reserve $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 Not to Exceed U L 0 2023 Annual Utility Replacement Project Q to See following page for fee d 002 Construction Inspection 10 16 308 334 $0 $53,340 $53,340 Not to Exceed calculation backup d Expenses $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 E O Total Hours 10 16 308 334 Q. Blueline Personnel $2,400 $3,200 $47,740 $266,600 $84,340 $350,940 N Previously Unspent Funds-$33,204 O Contract Total Fee $317,736 to O L Supplement 1 Adjustment (Contract Total Fee - Original Contract) $51,136 Q Q. Q C N E d d L a E 2 CL E U a E a Packet Pg. 95 8.7.a 001 Management Reserve Total Cost Total Item # Description 1 Management Reserve $30,000 Total Fee $30,000 $30,000 Senior Project Construction 002 Construction Inspection Engineer Total Hours Manager Inspector Item # Description $240/hr $200/hr $155/hr Hours Hours Hours 1 Preconstruction Meeting (incl. prep) 4 4 40 48 2 Part Time Inspections (Swks @ 40hr/wk) 200 200 3 Final Inspections & Punchlist 32 32 4 City Staff Support 6 12 36 54 Total Hours 10 16 308 334 Total Fee $2,400 $3,200 $47,740 $53,340 Packet Pg. 96 8.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 5-ft dedication for 192nd St SW right-of-way adjacent to 9009 192nd St SW Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On May 9, 2023, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was fowarded to the consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve dedication. Narrative The City is currently reviewing a proposed 2-lot subdivision, at 9009 192nd St SW. In accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.085 (Subdivision - Review Criteria), the city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. In accordance with ECDC 18.50.020 (Official Street Map - Dedication presumption and requirement), applicants for a subdivision shall be presumed to create development impacts upon the street and transportation system of the city and such presumed impacts shall be mitigated by the dedication of such right-of-way to the city and to public use. The City's Official Street Map indicates a 5-foot right-of-way dedication is required along the 192nd St SW property frontage of the subject development. As a condition of development, the 5-foot right-of- way shall be deeded to the City. Subsequent to Council approval, the street dedication will be recorded against the subject property with the final plat documents for the subdivision. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Dedication Plan Packet Pg. 97 city of Edmonds 9009 192nd St SW - Vicinity Map SHT�-- S73 T27N "\e� IL� y� V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I R LU -Q OD 0 1,010.38 2,020.8 Feet 1,504.7 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is f 18,056 p B p pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurat WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliabl (D City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIO I 8.8.a I ❑ Cn 0 0 0 Legend 3 Sections Boundary O Sections t Edmonds Boundary ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN <all other values> Vi Interstate r U) Principal Arterial C N Minor Arterial; Collector r Local Street; On Ramp L O State Highways r- O -. <all other values>+ R -- 0 V 1 d 2 w Lh County Boundary Parks ca ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHII ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES V City of Edmonds , City of Lynnwood C City of Mountlake Terrace N E Unincorporated King Cc; Unincor City of Woodway City of Arlington; City of Bothell; C Q City of Gold Bar; City of Granite F ; Citv of Marvsville: Citv of Mill Cre, d E Notes U NTS r Q Packet Pg. 98 1 1 8.8.b I I � I I I I I S89'49'13 E (D) 246.38' (D) I i S89'08'.30"F (r) 9Ar 33' (r) 0 rn 00434600002903 22,150 SF 0 U W W oN � Z O N89'50'53"W (D) N89'10'10-W (C) 246.32' (D)(C) \ � I 11 +00 _ — 12+00 �IX• C/L OF RD raj 1 �1+0� —� — 192ND ST. S. W. + �FX W rh OF RW I ----------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SCALE: 1" = 30' FXHIBIT A Q, 0 15 30 1 Packet Pg. 99 8.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Sno-Isle Library Restoration Project - Proof of Loss Documentation Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Susan McLaughlin Background/History In June 2022, the Library Building suffered damages as a result of flooding caused by a broken water pipe. The City obtained estimates from various contractors for the costs to repair the damage and submitted a claim to WCIA to cover these costs. Because the amount to repair the damage is above WCIA's coverage levels, WCIA submitted the excess claim amount to WCIA's group of reinsurers, who are responsible for the amount of the claim that exceeds WCIA's coverage. The City and McLarens, the lead agency for the reinsurers, have been in communications about the necessary repairs, and have negotiated an appropriate insurance settlement amount. To finalize the City's claim, WCIA and McLarens require the City to sign forms to accept the negotiated settlement. The Council reviewed the insurance payout from WCIA at an Executive Session on February 28th and supported the settlement amount. In order to accept the funds, it will need to provide WCIA with a copy of the attached form with the Mayor's signature to procure WCIA's payment. To procure the remainder of the payment due, the City will need to provide McLarens with a signature on their form, which is anticipated to be available in the very near term. Staff Recommendation Approval of Mayor's signature on and submitting of: (a) the attached Final Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to WCIA; and (b) the attached Confidential Release to WCIA's reinsurers. Narrative The City negotiated with three contractors to provide the necessary repairs to the Library Building, which have been estimated to cost $858,988.90. A consultant for McLarens, MKA, reviewed the City's estimates and reported that they believed the appropriate amount to pay for the repairs would be $819,525.00, which is $39,463.90 less than the City's estimate. The City continued to advocate for the full amount of its claim, and after several communications, the parties reached a tentative agreement that the City would receive 50% of the variance, for a total payout of $840,000.00. Of that amount, WCIA is responsible for $750,000.00. The attached Final Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to WCIA provides a breakdown of WCIA's payment, which is reduced by the City's deductible and payments already made on this claim. The remaining $90,000.00 will be paid by the reinsurers upon submittal of the City's signature on their settlement form. Attachments: Proof of Loss Statement Edmonds Library Release5.12.23 Packet Pg. 100 Risk Pool: Washington Cities Insurance Authority Member: City of Edmonds Claim Number: 22-1025 Policy Coverage Dates: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022 WCIA Scheduled Asset Number: ED-843 8.9.a LWA • Insurance Authority Phone: 206-575-6046 1 Fax: 206-575-7426 www.wciapool.org FINAL SWORN STATEMENT IN PROOF OF LOSS TO WCIA At the time of loss, the named WCIA member was covered by the described policy against loss by open perils to the asset described above, according to the terms and conditions of the policy and all forms, endorsements, transfers, and assignments attached thereto. 1. Time and origin: Property -Water PROP First Party occurred on or about 6/30/2022 at the insured location described above. 2. Title and interest: At the time of the loss, the interest of your insured in the property described therein was clear. No other person or persons had any interest therein or encumbrance thereon, except: None. 3. Changes: Since the said policy was issued there has been no assignment thereof, or change of interest, use, occupancy, possession, location or exposure of the property described, except: None. 4. Total insurance: The total amount of insurance upon the property described by this policy was, at the time of the loss, $7,005,900.00 as described in the WCIA Property coverage schedule for the asset listed above. There was no other policy or contract of insurance, written or oral, valid or invalid. 5. The replacement cost value at the time of the loss was 6. Less any applicable depreciation: 7. The actual cash value at the time of the loss was: 8. Less amount of deductible: 9. Less prior payment(s) made: 10. Final amount owed: $7,005,900.00 $0 $840,000 ($725,000 WCIA Share) $25,000.00 $2,277 $722,723 The said loss did not originate by any act, design or procurement on the part of your insured, or this affiant; nothing has been done by or with the privity or consent of your insured or this affiant, to violate the conditions of the policy, or render it void; no articles are mentioned herein or in annexed schedules but such as were destroyed or damaged at the time of said loss; no property saved has in any manner been concealed, and no attempt to deceive the said company, as to the extent of said loss, has in any manner been made. Any other information that may be required will be furnished and considered a part of this proof. The furnishing of this blank or the preparation of proofs by a representative of the above risk pool is not a waiver of any of its rights. Signed on behalf of the WCIA Member Position with Member Packet Pg. 101 8.9.b CONFIDENTIAL RELEASE In consideration of the payment reflected below, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City of Edmonds, Washington (referred to as "the City"), hereby agrees to fully and completely settle, release and discharge any and all claims the City may have against the Market of Underwriting Insurers listed in Exhibit A to this Release ("the Market") pertaining to the City's insurance claim described below. WHEREAS the City is a participating municipal entity in the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), which on behalf of all participating municipal entities, procured insurance coverage from the Market, the benefits of which are documented in a written insurance policy effective from December 1, 2021 to December 1, 2022 ("the Policy"); WHEREAS, on June 30, 2022 during the period of the Policy, a broken water line damaged City property, including but not limited to the City Library (the "Incident"); WHEREAS, the City submitted to the Market a property loss notice seeking coverage benefits under the Policy for damage resulting from the Incident, at which point the matter was assigned the claim numbers identified in Exhibit A (the "Claim"); WHEREAS, the Market investigated the Claim and has engaged with City personnel toward resolution of the Claim; WHEREAS, the City and the Market now desire to settle all existing and potential disputes between them arising out of, or in any way related to, the Incident, Claim and/or Policy with all such settled disputes collectively referred to as the "Released Claims"; NOW, THEREFORE, the City provides this Confidential Release, upon payment of the amounts described below, according to the terms and conditions stated below. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Release by the Ci The City, for itself, assigns, legal representatives and attorneys, and on behalf of all persons and entities claiming by, through, or on its behalf, upon receipt of the payment described in paragraph 2 below, do hereby fully and forever release, hold harmless and discharge the Market from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, anticipated and unanticipated, accrued and un-accrued, past, present and future, that have been asserted or could have been asserted, arising out of or in any way connected or related to the Released Claims, including, but not limited to, any and all claims arising from breaches of contract, breaches of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the applicable consumer protection acts and insurance codes or regulations, including, but not limited to Washington State insurance regulations and statutes, violations of common law, negligence, tortious interference with contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, all other extra -contractual claims, and any other legal or equitable causes of action — whether direct, indirect or consequential. These releases specifically include, but are not limited to, any and all property damage, interior damage, extra expense, additional living expenses, lost rent or other damages and claims of any nature that have been asserted or Confidential Release Page 1 Packet Pg. 102 8.9.b could have been asserted in connection with the Released Claims. Furthermore, the City's release extends to the Market's claims and underwriting service managers, agents, adjusters and independent adjusters, assigns, reinsurers, and attorneys; all of the foregoing's past, present, and future parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions; and all of the foregoing's officers, directors, agents, representatives, and employees. 2. Payment In consideration of the release set forth above in Paragraph 1, the Market hereby agrees to pay the total sum of $92,277 (Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars, hereinafter referred to as the "Settlement Amount"). The Settlement Amount shall be made payable to the City of Edmonds (TIN ). The Market will deliver payment to the attention of Harlan Stientjes within 21 business days after The Market's independent adjusters at McLarens receive the City's authorized signature on this Confidential Release. 3. Hold harmless In accepting the payment described herein, the City agrees to pay any and all third - parties to whom any portion of the insurance payments are due, including but not limited to vendors or the City's public adjuster. The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Market harmless from any claims of third parties brought against the Market arising from the City's failure to make payment described in this section. 4. Disclaimer of Liability The City agrees and acknowledges that payment of the Settlement Amount is to be considered a full and complete compromise of the Market's purported liability in connection with the Released Claims; that neither payment of this sum by the Market nor the negotiations for this Confidential Release (including all statements, admissions, or communications) by the Market or its representatives shall be considered admissions by any of said parties and same hereby is expressly denied; and that no past or present wrongdoing on the part of the Market shall be implied by such payment or negotiations. 5. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Subject to Paragraph 5 above, the City and the Market each shall bear their own attorneys' fees, adjuster's fees and costs arising from or related to the Released Claims, this Confidential Release, and all matters referred to herein. 6. Warranty of Capacity to Execute The City represents and warrants that the City has not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed, or otherwise disposed of any of the claims, demands, obligations, or causes of action referred to in this Confidential Release. The City further represents and warrants Confidential Release Page 2 Packet Pg. 103 8.9.b that its authorized representative is an authorized City employee with the full right, responsibility and authority to execute this Confidential Release. 7. Choice of Law This Confidential Release is entered into in the state of Washington and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Washington. 8. Combrehension of Confidential Release and Consultation with Counsel In entering into this Confidential Release, the City represents that it relied or has had the opportunity to rely upon the advice of personally selected counsel and have the terms of this Confidential Release completely read and explained by such counsel. The City further states that the terms of this Confidential Release are fully understood and voluntarily agreed upon without duress. 9. Multiple Originals This Confidential Release may be executed electronically or by facsimile. The text of the Confidential Release, together with accurate copies of the relevant signature, shall have the force and effect of an original. 10. Confidentiality 6. The City and its representatives agree that the terms and conditions of this Confidential Release shall not be disclosed or revealed to any person or entity, except as provided below. The City and their counsel and other agents are permitted to say that the Claim "has been resolved and that the terms of the release are confidential." The Subscribing Insurers acknowledge and understand that as a public entity The City is subject to the public disclosure laws of the State of Washington, and that this settlement agreement would be produced in response to a public disclosure request to which the Agreement would be responsive. In addition, such additional information may be disclosed: a. Pursuant to a proper discovery request in the course of litigation or by order of a court or regulatory body; in which event the City shall notify the Market's independent adjuster immediately upon receipt of such discovery request or order and prior to any such disclosure; b. By prior written approval of the Market; C. To enforce the terms of this Confidential Release, the settlement and any documents describing its terms shall be filed under seal; d. To any Party's own accounting, tax, legal advisors or reinsurers. 11. Severability If any provision of this Confidential Release is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be severable and all other provisions of this Confidential Release shall continue in full force and effect, except that if the releases given for the benefit of the Market in Paragraph 1 are found to be void or Confidential Release Page 3 Packet Pg. 104 8.9.b unenforceable, this entire Confidential Release shall be void, and the City shall return the Unpaid Amount to the Market. Confidential Release Page 4 Packet Pg. 105 8.9.b Date: Signature: Title: r a Confidential Release Page 5 Packet Pg. 106 8.9.b EXHIBIT A Subscribing Insurers INSURER POLICY NO./CLAIM NO. SHARE National Fire & Marine Policy # 42-PRP-000098-09 12.5% Claim # PR2207113502 Lloyd's of London, Ltd. Policy # BOWPN2151579 5% Claim # B0509PN2151579ABA Lloyd's of London, Ltd. Policy # BOWPN2151594 60% Claim # B0509PN2151594ABA Lloyd's of London, Ltd. Policy # BOWPN2151588 7.5% Claim # B0509PN2151588ABA M N Interstate Fire & Casualty Policy # RTX20026621 5.0% N Claim # 954512 r ui m N m Landmark American Insurance Co. Policy # LHT427850 7.5% a� Claim # 7030171566 cc J N Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. Policy # 100050792401 2.5% c Claim # SANPRO000418724 w c m E Total 100% c� Q Confidential Release Page 6 Packet Pg. 107 8.10 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Authorize Mayor Nelson to Sign Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Grant Agreement with Housing Hope Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin Department: Planning Division Preparer: Brad Shipley Background/History The Washington State Department of Commerce's Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) was introduced to City Council Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel Committee on May 9, 2023 and recommended, with some clarifications, to be moved forward for consideration by the full City Council. The items requiring clarification were the following: 1) Assurance that Housing Hope will continue to provide affordable housing for the 25-year term, as required by the grant requirements. RESPONSE: Section 3 of the Grant Agreement with Housing Hope has been amended to assure compliance (Attachment 2). 2) Transparency regarding whether the estimated 15-25 hours of staff time required to administer the grant would be included as part of the grant expenditures. RESPONSE: Staff time to administer that grant is not proposed to be included in the grant expenditures. CHIP grants provide funds for water, sewer, and stormwater improvements and/or waived system development charges for new affordable housing projects. The applicant must be a city, county, or public utility district in partnership with an affordable housing project. The City of Edmonds, in partnership with Housing Hope, applied for the CHIP grant in 2022 and was awarded $1,361,011. As the grantee, the City would act as a pass -through entity for the purposes of receipt and distribution of grant funds and would be responsible for reviewing and submitting to Commerce the required documentation provided by Housing Hope. More information regarding the City's obligation is provided in the narrative below. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the grant agreement via the consent agenda. Packet Pg. 108 8.10 Narrative The CHIP grant program helps reduce the development costs for developers of affordable housing projects. To apply for the program, affordable housing developers must partner with a city, county, or public utility district. Housing Hope contacted city staff in 2021 to inquire about a potential partnership and, in 2022, the parties applied for the CHIP grant and was awarded $1,361,011. The grant requirements include: - The city or county must have imposed a sales and use tax for affordable housing. - The new housing development must include at least 25% affordable units, which must have a strong probability of serving the target group for at least 25 years. - The affordable housing development must begin construction within 24 months of the grant award. - Federal funds must be under contract by December 2024 and expended by December 2026. - Projects funded with state resources must be completed by June 2025 pending legislative re - appropriations. - Where applicable, the extension for new drinking water, wastewater or stormwater connections must be consistent with the approved comprehensive plans under the Growth Management Act and must be within the established boundaries of the Urban Growth Area. Housing Hope is planning a 52-unit multi -family development with associated services on the vacant lot immediately to the east of Edmonds Lutheran Church. The completed project will provide supportive services, staff offices, community amenities, and streetscape improvements. All 52 units will serve families with children. Half of the units are allocated to families coming directly from homelessness and the remaining units will serve families with very -low income who earn less than 50 percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, which equates to $57,875 annually for a family of four. Permit review for the project is nearing completion and Housing Hope anticipates closing on funding for the project in late May 2023. If the funds are not received, Housing Hope would need to provide the project funds in the form of philanthropic grants and project contributions, which considering the timing of the project (construction is tentatively scheduled to commence in June 2023) would lead to a potential project delay of 12 months. Such a time period would expose the project to cost escalation and vulnerability to external market conditions (rising interest rates, variability in Low Income Housing Tax Credit pricing, etc), which would also increase costs. The City's role in administration of the grant is detailed in the Capital Agreement with Commerce (Attachment 1) and the grant agreement with Housing Hope (Attachment 2) and summarized in Attachment 3. Not more than once every 30 days, Housing Hope will provide the required documentation, including invoices for eligible expenses, documentation of costs, project status reports, Certification of the Payment and Reporting of Prevailing Wages, and reportable expense forms to the city Planning Division. Planning staff will review the documentation and verify work was completed, fill out an A-19 form (Attachment 4), and submit the required documents to Commerce. Commerce will have 30 days to review the documentation for compliance with the program and issue an approval or denial. If approved, Commerce will issue re-imbursement funds to the city for distribution to Housing Hope. The administrative burden to the city is estimated to be approximately 15-20 hours of staff time over a six- month construction period. Packet Pg. 109 8.10 The grant is expected to cover nearly 75 percent of the costs to design, construct, and permit on- and off -site utilities. Attachments: Attachment 1- Capital Agreement with Commerce Attachment 2 - Grant Agreement with Housing Hope Attachment 3 - Grant Administration Process Overview Attachment 4 - A-19 Reimbursement Form Packet Pg. 110 8.10.a ® , Washington State ' . Department of �► Commerce Capital Agreement with City of Edmonds through America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Purpose To support the development of affordable housing by paying for utility infrastructure improvements at Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments Start date: July 1, 2021 Packet Pg. 111 8.10.a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Q Packet Pg. 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.10.a FaceSheet.....................................................................................................................iv Declarations.................................................................................................................... 1 Special Terms and Conditions........................................................................................2 1. Authority.................................................................................................. 2 2. Acknowledgement of Federal Funding ..................................................... 2 3. Grant Management..................................................................................2 4. Period of Performance, Costs Incurred, Reimbursement ......................... 2 5. Compensation..........................................................................................2 6. Billing Procedures and Payment.............................................................. 3 7. Subcontractor Data Collection.........................................................4 8. Historical or Cultural Resources, Human Remains...................................4 9. Audit........................................................................................................4 10. Debarment...............................................................................................4 11. Insurance................................................................................................. 5 12. Compliance with Applicable Law and Regulations ................................... 5 13. Federal Exclusion.................................................................................... 6 14. Registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) .................. 7 15. Reduction In Funds..................................................................................7 16. Ownership of Project/Capital Facilities.....................................................7 17. Change of Ownership or Use for Grantee -Owned Property ..................... 7 18. Change of Use for Leased Property Performance Measure ..................... 8 19. Termination for Fraud or Misrepresentation............................................. 8 20. Fraud....................................................................................................... 8 21. Order of Precedence................................................................................ 8 General Terms and Conditions....................................................................................... 9 1. Definitions................................................................................................9 2. Administrative Cost Allocation.................................................................. 9 3. Allowable Costs....................................................................................... 9 4. All Writings Contained Herein.................................................................. 9 5. Amendments............................................................................................9 6. Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)......................................................9 7. Approval..................................................................................................9 8. Assignment............................................................................................10 9. Attorney's Fees...................................................................................... 10 10. Audit...................................................................................................... 10 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility or Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion....................................................... 10 12. Code Requirements............................................................................... 11 13. Confidentiality/Safeguarding of Information ............................................ 11 14. Conformance......................................................................................... 12 15. Conflict of Interest.................................................................................. 12 16. Copyright Provisions.............................................................................. 12 17. Disallowed Costs...................................................................................13 18. Disputes.................................................................................................13 19. Duplicate Payment.................................................................................13 Packet Pg. 113 8.10.a 20. Governing Law and Venue..................................................................... 13 21. Indemnification....................................................................................... 13 22. Independent Capacity of the Grantee ..................................................... 14 23. Industrial Insurance Coverage............................................................... 14 24. Laws...................................................................................................... 14 25. Licensing, Accreditation and Registration ............................................... 14 26. Limitation of Authority............................................................................ 14 27. Noncompliance With Nondiscrimination Laws ........................................ 14 28. Pay Equity.............................................................................................. 14 29. Political Activities................................................................................... 15 30. Prevailing Wage Law............................................................................. 15 31. Procurement Standards for Federally Funded Programs ....................... 15 32. Prohibition Against Payment of Bonus or Commission ........................... 16 33. Publicity.................................................................................................16 34. Recapture.............................................................................................. 16 35. Records Maintenance............................................................................ 16 36. Registration with Department of Revenue .............................................. 16 37. Right of Inspection................................................................................. 16 38. Savings..................................................................................................16 39. Severability............................................................................................17 40. Subcontracting.......................................................................................17 41. Survival..................................................................................................17 42. Taxes.....................................................................................................17 43. Termination for Cause............................................................................ 17 44. Termination for Convenience................................................................. 18 45. Termination Procedures......................................................................... 18 46. Treatment of Assets............................................................................... 19 47. Waiver................................................................................................... 19 48. Work Hours and Safety Standards......................................................... 19 AttachmentA- Scope of Work.......................................................................................20 Attachment B- Certification of the Availability of Funds to Complete the Project ........... 22 Attachment C- Certification of the Payment and Reporting of Prevailing Wages ........... 23 Packet Pg. 114 8.10.a Contract Number: 22-96720-: Washington State Department of Commerce Local Government Division Community Assistance & Research Unit ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Grant 1. Grantee 2. Project Name and Address City of Edmonds Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments 121 Fifth Avenue North 8215 236th Street Southwest Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 3. Grantee Representative 4. COMMERCE Representative Brad Shipley Eric Guida PO Box 42525 Associate Planner CHIP Program Manager 1011 Plum Street SE (425)967-2645 (360)725-3044 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov eric.guida@commerce.wa.gov 5. Grant Amount 6. Funding Source 7. Start Date 8. End Date $1,361,011 Federal: ® State: ❑ Other: ❑ N/A: ❑ July 1, 2021 June 30,2025 9. Federal Funds (as applicable) Federal Agency ALN (CFDA #): $1,361,011 US Dept. Treasury 21.027 10. SWV # 11. UBI # 12. DUNS # 13. UNIQUE ENTITY ID # 0013866-07 312-000-093 40172827 N F 1 AQNT457R7 14. Grant Purpose The outcome of this performance -based Grant Agreement is to undertake utility infrastructure improvements as referenced in Attachment A — Scope of Work for the Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments project. COMMERCE, defined as the Department of Commerce and Grantee acknowledge and accept the terms of this Grant and attachments and have executed this Grant on the date below to start as of the date and year referenced above. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Grant are governed by this Grant and the following other documents incorporated by reference: Grantee Terms and Conditions including Attachment "A" — Scope of Work, Attachment "B" — Certification of Availability of Funds to Complete the Project, Attachment "C" — Certification of the Payment and Reporting of Prevailing Wages, FOR GRANTEE FOR COMMERCE Mark K. Barkley, Assistant Director, Local Government Michael Nelson, Mayor Division Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Name Sandra Adix Assistant Attorney General March 31, 2022 Date Date r a Packet Pg. 115 8.10.a DECLARATIONS CLIENT INFORMATION GRANTEE Name: City of Edmonds Grant Number: 22-96720-210 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments Project Address: 8215 236th Street Southwest Project City, State Zip Code: Edmonds, WA 98020 GRANT INFORMATION Grant Amount: Appropriation Number: Grant End Date: Biennium: Biennium Close Date: Earliest Date for Reimbursement: Time of Performance: FUNDING INFORMATION Federal Funding: Federal Award Agency: $1,361,011 2021 Washington State Capital Budget SSB 1080, Section 1074 June 30, 2025 2021-2023, 2023-2025 June 30, 2025 March 3, 2021 In accordance with Special Terms and Conditions Number 4 Sec. 602 Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds of Title VI of Social Security Act as added by American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA or "Act"), Title IX, Subtitle M, Sec. 9901, Public Law 117-2, codified at 42 U.S.C. 802 et seq. US Department of Treasury Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this Action: $1,361,011 ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT Extension of Grant Upon Reappropriation. ku U Notwithstanding General Term and Condition No. 4, the End Date of this Grant may be extended upon written notice to Grantee from Commerce for a period of time consistent with the effective date of any re -appropriation of funds, and/or with terms reflecting new Federal requirements for ARPA funds, if any. In E Commerce's sole discretion, after review of any funding re -appropriation terms and applicable Federal law U or guidance, a contract amendment in accordance with General Term and Condition No. 4 may be required a to extend the End Date. r c as E Last revision 11/23/2021 Q Packet Pg. 116 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 1. AUTHORITY Funding for this Grant has been provided in the 2021-2023 biennial state Capital Budget, SSB 1080, pursuant to Federal grants to Washington State under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA or "Act"), sec. 9901, Public Law 117-2, codified at 42 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Unexpended funds from the 2021-23 state biennium have been re -appropriated to the 2023-25 state biennium. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN): SLRF0002 Total amount of the federal award: $1,361,011 Federal Awarding Agency: US Department of Treasury Research & Development (R&D): award will not be used for R&D The Grantee agrees that any publications (written, visual, or sound) but excluding press releases, newsletters, and issue analyses, issued by the Grantee describing programs or projects funded in whole or in part with federal funds under this Grant, shall contain the following statements: "This project was supported by grant awarded by the US Department of the Treasury. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of the Treasury. Grant funds are administered by the America Rescue Plan Act, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Washington State Department of Commerce." 3. GRANT MANAGEMENT The Representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Grant. The Representative for COMMERCE and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. The Representative for the Grantee and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. 4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, COSTS INCURRED, REIMBURSEMENT a) Period of Performance, The initial period of performance for this award begins on the date hereof and ends on June 30, 2025. If unexpended funds under this Grant are re -appropriated, the period of performance (Contract End Date) will be extended to not later than October 30, 2026. b) Costs Incurred Period. As set forth in Treasury's implementing regulations, Grantee may use funds awarded under ARPA to cover eligible costs incurred during the period that begins on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Pursuant to Federal rules, a cost shall be considered to have been incurred if the Grantee has incurred an obligation with respect to such cost by December 31, 2024. All change orders for which reimbursement is requested must be executed on or before December 31, 2024. c) Reimbursement Period. All requests for reimbursement of eligible costs incurred between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024 payable from ARPA funds must be submitted to COMMERCE by the earlier of October 30, 2026 or 30 days prior to the Contract End Date. 5. COMPENSATION COMMERCE shall pay an amount not to exceed the total contract amount listed on the contract Face Sheet for the performance of all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work. 2 Packet Pg. 117 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 6. BILLING PROCEDURES AND PAYMENT COMMERCE shall reimburse the GRANTEE for eligible Project expenditures, up to the maximum payable under this Grant Agreement. When requesting reimbursement for expenditures made, the GRANTEE shall submit to COMMERCE a signed and completed Invoice Voucher (Form A-19), that documents capitalized Project activity performed for the billing period. The GRANTEE can submit all Invoice Vouchers and any required documentation electronically through COMMERCE's Grants Management System (CMS), which is available through the Secure Access Washington (SAW) portal. The invoices shall describe and document, to COMMERCE's satisfaction, a description of the work performed, the progress of the project, and fees. The invoice shall include the Grant Number listed on the contract Face Sheet. The voucher must be certified (signed) by an official of the GRANTEE with authority to bind the GRANTEE. The final voucher shall be submitted to COMMERCE within sixty (60) days following the completion of work or other termination of this Grant Agreement, or if work is not completed or Grant terminated, within fifteen (15) days following the end of the state biennium unless Grant Agreement funds are reappropriated by the Legislature in accordance with Additional Special Terms and Conditions set forth in the Declarations page above. Each request for payment must be accompanied by: a Project Status Report, which describes, in narrative form, the progress made on the Project since the last invoice was submitted, as well as a report of Project status to date. COMMERCE will not release payment for any reimbursement request received unless and until the Project Status Report is received. After approving the Invoice Voucher and Project Status Report, COMMERCE shall promptly remit a warrant to the GRANTEE. Any documentation of costs, and prevailing wage as per section 8 of the Special Terms and Conditions and Attachment C, CERTIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT AND REPORTING OF PREVAILING WAGES. A reportable expenses form as detailed in Section 7 of Special Terms and Conditions, SUBCONTRACTOR DATA COLLECTION. COMMERCE will pay GRANTEE upon acceptance of services provided and receipt of properly completed invoices, which shall be submitted to the Representative for COMMERCE not more often than monthly. Payment shall be considered timely if made by COMMERCE within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of properly completed invoices. Payment shall be sent to the address designated by the Grantee. COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, terminate the Grant or withhold payments claimed by the Grantee for services rendered if the Grantee fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Grant. No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by COMMERCE. Invoices and End of Fiscal Year Invoices are due on the 20th of the month following the provision of services. Final invoices for a state fiscal year may be due sooner than the 20th and Commerce will provide notification of the end of fiscal year due date. The grantee must invoice for all expenses from the beginning of the contract through June 30, regardless of the contract start and end date. Duplication of Billed Costs The Grantee shall not bill COMMERCE for services performed under this Agreement, and COMMERCE shall not pay the Grantee, if the Grantee is entitled to payment or has been or will be paid by any other source, including grants, for that service. 3 Packet Pg. 118 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS Disallowed Costs The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its subcontractors. Withholding At its sole discretion, COMMERCE may withhold ten percent (10%) of the full grant amount until acceptance by COMMERCE of the final report (or completion of the project, etc.). 7. SUBCONTRACTOR DATA COLLECTION Grantee will submit reports, in a form and format to be provided by Commerce and at intervals as agreed by the parties, regarding work under this Grant performed by subcontractors and the portion of Grant funds expended for work performed by subcontractors, including but not necessarily limited to minority -owned, woman -owned, and veteran -owned business subcontractors. "Subcontractors" shall mean subcontractors of any tier. 8. HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCES, HUMAN REMAINS CHIP projects are subject to the requirements of Washington State Governor's Executive Order (GEO) 21-02 "Archaeological and Cultural Resources". CHIP Grantees will cooperate with Commerce to fulfill the requirements of GEO-21-02. Commerce will delegate consultation authority to the grantee by letter, and each project must complete the EZ-1 Form to comply with the GEO 21-02. In the event that historical or cultural artifacts are discovered at the Project site during construction or rehabilitation, the Grantee or subcontractor shall immediately stop work and notify the local historical preservation officer and the state historic preservation officer at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (360) 586-3065. If human remains are discovered, the Grantee shall immediately stop work and report the presence and location of the remains to the coroner and local enforcement, then contact DAHP and any concerned tribe's cultural staff or committee. 9. AUDIT If the Grantee is a subrecipient and expends $750,000 or more in federal awards from any and/or all sources in any fiscal year, the Grantee shall procure and pay for a single audit or a program - specific audit for that fiscal year. Upon completion of each audit, the Grantee shall: 1. Submit to COMMERCE the reporting package specified in Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200, reports required by the program -specific audit guide (if applicable), and a copy of any management letters issued by the auditor. 2. Submit to COMMERCE follow-up and developed corrective action plans for all audit findings. If the Grantee is a subrecipient and expends less than $750,000 in federal awards from any and/or all sources in any fiscal year, the Grantee shall notify COMMERCE they did not meet the single audit requirement. The Grantee shall send all single audit documentation to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. httr)s://facides.census.gov/Account/Login.asi)x 10. DEBARMENT A. Grantee, defined as the primary participant and it principals, certifies by signing these General Terms and Conditions that to the best of its knowledge and belief that they: Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency. 4 Packet Pg. 119 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS Have not within a three-year period preceding this Grant, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction, violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of federal Executive Order 12549; and iv. Have not within a three-year period preceding the signing of this Grant had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause of default. B. Where the Grantee is unable to certify to any of the statements in this Grant, the Grantee shall attach an explanation to this Grant. C. The Grantee agrees by signing this Grant that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by COMMERCE. Grantees should review section 14 of the Special Terms and Conditions for information on documenting that any subcontractors are not on the federal debarment list. D. The Grantee further agrees by signing this Grant that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," as follows, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions: LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS The lower tier Grantee certifies, by signing this Grant that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Where the lower tier Grantee is unable to certify to any of the statements in this Grant, such contractor shall attach an explanation to this Grant. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, person, primary covered transaction, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this section, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact COMMERCE for assistance in obtaining a copy of these regulations. 11. INSURANCE Each party certifies that it is self -insured under the State's or local government self-insurance liability program, and shall be responsible for losses for which it is found liable. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS A. Grantee agrees to comply with the requirements of section 603 of the Act, regulations adopted by Treasury pursuant to section 603(f) of the Act, and guidance issued by Treasury regarding the foregoing. Grantee also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and Grantee shall provide for such compliance by other parties in any agreements it enters into with other parties relating to this award. B. Federal regulations applicable to this award include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: i. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may determine are inapplicable to this Award and subject to such exceptions as may be otherwise provided by Treasury. Subpart F — Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance, implementing the Single Audit Act, shall apply to this award. 5 Packet Pg. 120 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS ii. Universal Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM), 2 C.F.R. Part 25, pursuant to which the award term set forth in Appendix A to 2 C.F.R. Part 25 is hereby incorporated by reference. iii. Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information, 2 C.F.R. Part 170, pursuant to which the award term set forth in Appendix A to 2 C.F.R. Part 170 is hereby incorporated by reference. iv. OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (Non - procurement), 2 C.F.R. Part 180, including the requirement to include a term or condition in all lower tier covered transactions (contracts and subcontracts described in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, subpart B) that the award is subject to 2 C.F.R. Part 180 and Treasury's implementing regulation at 31 C.F.R. Part 19. v. Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters, pursuant to which the award term set forth in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XI to Part 200 is hereby incorporated by reference. vi. Government wide Requirements for Drug -Free Workplace, 31 C.F.R. Part 20. vii. New Restrictions on Lobbying, 31 C.F.R. Part 21. viii. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4601-4655) and implementing regulations. ix. Generally applicable federal environmental laws and regulations. x. Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment 2 CFR 2§ 00.216. C. Statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination applicable to this award include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.) and Treasury's implementing regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 22, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance; ii. The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability; iii. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance; iv. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.), and Treasury's implementing regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 23, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance; and v. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under programs, activities, and services provided or made available by state and local governments or instrumentalities or agencies thereto. 13. FEDERAL EXCLUSION These terms add to the terms in Section 12 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion — Primary and Lower Tier Covered Transactions in General Terms and Conditions. The Grantee also agrees to access the Federal Exclusion List at www.sam.gov and provide Federal Exclusion documentation to Commerce and to keep a copy on file with the Grantee's project records. 6 Packet Pg. 121 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 14. REGISTRATION WITH THE SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT By signing this Grant, the Grantee accepts the requirements stated in 48 CFR 52.204-7 to register with the System for Award Management at the SAM website (httr)s://www.sam.gov). To register in SAM, a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) is required. The Grantee is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the data within the SAM database and for any liability resulting from the Government's reliance on inaccurate or incomplete data. The Grantee must remain registered in the SAM database after the initial registration. The Grantee is required to review and update on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates its information in SAM to ensure it is current, accurate and complete. The Grantee shall provide evidence documenting registration and renewal of SAM registration to Commerce. In the event of the Grantee's noncompliance or refusal to comply with the requirement stated above, Commerce reserves the right to suspend payment until the Grantee cures this noncompliance. 15. REDUCTION IN FUNDS In the event state funds appropriated for the work contemplated under this Grant Agreement are withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way by the Governor or the Washington State Legislature during the Grant Agreement period, the parties hereto shall be bound by any such revised funding limitations as implemented at the discretion of COMMERCE, and shall meet and renegotiate the Grant Agreement accordingly. 16. OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT/CAPITAL FACILITIES COMMERCE makes no claim to any real property improved or constructed with funds awarded under this Grant Agreement and does not assert and will not acquire any ownership interest in or title to the capital facilities and/or equipment constructed or purchased with state funds under this Grant Agreement; provided, however, that COMMERCE may be granted a security interest in real property, to secure funds awarded under this Grant Agreement to assure affordability when the CHIP grant program contributed to the project, unless monitored by another funder. The funding for this program, [SB 5651 (section 1032), laws of 2021] requires that projects serve and benefit low-income households, and requires affordability for at least 25 years. This provision does not extend to claims that COMMERCE may bring against the GRANTEE in recapturing funds expended in violation of this Grant Agreement. 17. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FOR GRANTEE -OWNED PROPERTY A. The GRANTEE understands and agrees that any and all real property or facilities owned by the GRANTEE that are acquired, constructed, or otherwise improved by the GRANTEE using state funds under this Grant Agreement, shall be held and used by the GRANTEE for the purpose or purposes stated elsewhere in this Grant Agreement for a period of at least twenty five (25) years from the date the final payment is made hereunder. B. This provision shall not be construed to prohibit the GRANTEE from selling any property or properties described in this section; Provided, that any such sale shall be subject to prior review and approval by COMMERCE, and that all proceeds from such sale shall be applied to the purchase price of a different facility or facilities of equal or greater value than the original facility and that any such new facility or facilities will be used for the purpose or purposes stated elsewhere in this Grant Agreement. C. In the event the GRANTEE is found to be out of compliance with this section, the GRANTEE shall repay to the state general fund the principal amount of the grant as stated on the Face Sheet, hereof, plus interest calculated at the rate of interest on state of Washington general obligation bonds issued most closely to the effective date of the legislation in which the subject facility was authorized. Repayment shall be made pursuant to Section 34 (Recapture provision). 7 Packet Pg. 122 8.10.a SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 18. CHANGE OF USE FOR LEASED PROPERTY PERFORMANCE MEASURE A. The GRANTEE understands and agrees that any facility leased by the GRANTEE that is constructed, renovated, or otherwise improved using state funds under this Grant Agreement shall be used by the GRANTEE for the purpose or purposes stated elsewhere in this Grant Agreement for a period of at least twenty five (25) years from the date the final payment is made hereunder. B. In the event the GRANTEE is found to be out of compliance with this section, the GRANTEE shall repay to the state general fund the principal amount of the grant as stated on the Face Sheet, hereof, plus interest calculated at the rate of interest on state of Washington general obligation bonds issued most closely to the effective date of the legislation in which the subject facility was authorized. Repayment shall be made pursuant to Section 34 (Recapture Provision). 19. TERMINATION FOR FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION In the event the GRANTEE commits fraud or makes any misrepresentation in connection with the Grant application or during the performance of this Grant Agreement, COMMERCE reserves the right to terminate or amend this Grant Agreement accordingly, including the right to recapture all funds disbursed to the GRANTEE under the Grant. 20. FRAUD AND OTHER LOSS REPORTING Grantee shall report in writing all known or suspected fraud or other loss of any funds or other property furnished under this Grant Agreement immediately or as soon as practicable to the COMMERCE Representative identified on the Face Sheet. 21. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of an inconsistency in this Grant, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: • Applicable federal and state of Washington statutes and regulations • Special Terms and Conditions • General Terms and Conditions • Attachment A — Scope of Work • Attachment B — Certification of the Availability of Funds to Complete the Project • Attachment C — Certification of the Payment and Reporting of Prevailing Wages 8 Packet Pg. 123 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 1. DEFINITIONS As used throughout this Grant, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: A. "Authorized Representative" shall mean the Director and/or the designee authorized in writing to act on the Director's behalf. B. "COMMERCE" shall mean the Department of Commerce. C. "Grant" or "Agreement" means the entire written agreement between COMMERCE and the Grantor, including any Exhibits, documents, or materials incorporated by reference. E-mail or Facsimile transmission of a signed copy of this contract shall be the same as delivery of an original. D. "Grantee" shall mean the entity identified on the face sheet performing service(s) under this Grant, and shall include all employees and agents of the Grantee. E. "Personal Information" shall mean information identifiable to any person, including, but not limited to, information that relates to a person's name, health, finances, education, business, use or receipt of governmental services or other activities, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, driver license numbers, other identifying numbers, and any financial identifiers. F. "State" shall mean the state of Washington. G. "Subcontractor" shall mean one not in the employment of the Grantee, who is performing all or part of those services under this Grant under a separate contract with the Grantee. The terms "subcontractor" and "subcontractors" mean subcontractor(s) in any tier. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE COST ALLOCATION Administrative costs that may be allowed are set forth in the Special Terms and Conditions. Administrative services shared by other programs shall be assigned to this Grant based on an allocation plan that reflects allowable administrative costs that support services provided under each Grant administered by the Grantee. An approved current federal indirect cost rate may be applied up to the maximum administrative budget allowed. 3. ALLOWABLE COSTS Costs allowable under this Grant are actual expenditures according to an approved budget up to the maximum amount stated on the Grant Award or Amendment Face Sheet. 4. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Grant contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Grant shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 5. AMENDMENTS This Grant may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 6. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, also referred to as the "ADA" 28 CFR Part 35 The Grantee must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 7. APPROVAL This contract shall be subject to the written approval of COMMERCE's Authorized Representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The contract may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. 9 Packet Pg. 124 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 8. ASSIGNMENT Neither this Grant, nor any claim arising under this Grant, shall be transferred or assigned by the Grantee without prior written consent of COMMERCE. For the purpose of the CHIP contracts, which require a city, county or public utility sponsor of the affordable housing project, Commerce preapproves the grantee to assign this contract to their affordable housing partner. In this case, all requirements and contract terms flow to the assignee's subcontractors, specifically section 11, certification regarding debarment, and section 40, subcontracting, of the General Terms and Conditions. After assignment, all references to Grantee shall mean Grantee's assignee. 9. ATTORNEYS' FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Grant, in the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce Grant terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. 10. AUDIT If the Grantee is a subrecipient and expends $750,000 or more in federal awards from any and/or all sources in any fiscal year, the Grantee shall procure and pay for a single audit or a program - specific audit for that fiscal year. Upon completion of each audit, the Grantee shall: 1. Submit to COMMERCE the reporting package specified in Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200, reports required by the program -specific audit guide (if applicable), and a copy of any management letters issued by the auditor. 2. Submit to COMMERCE follow-up and developed corrective action plans for all audit findings. If the Grantee is a subrecipient and expends less than $750,000 in federal awards from any and/or all sources in any fiscal year, the Grantee shall notify COMMERCE they did not meet the single audit requirement. The Grantee shall send all single audit documentation to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. https://facides.census.gov/Account/Login.aspx 11. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION OR INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION —PRIMARY AND LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS A. Grantee, defined as the primary participant and it principals, certifies by signing these General Terms and Conditions that to the best of its knowledge and belief that they: i. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency. ii. Have not within a three-year period preceding this contract, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction, violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; iii. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of federal Executive Order 12549; and iv. Have not within a three-year period preceding the signing of this contract had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause of default. B. Where the Grantee is unable to certify to any of the statements in this contract, the Grantee shall attach an explanation to this contract. 10 Packet Pg. 125 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS C. The Grantee agrees by signing this contract that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by COMMERCE. D. The Grantee further agrees by signing this contract that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," as follows, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions: LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS The lower tier contractor certifies, by signing this contract that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. ii. Where the lower tier contractor is unable to certify to any of the statements in this contract, such contractor shall attach an explanation to this contract. E. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, person, primary covered transaction, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this section, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact COMMERCE for assistance in obtaining a copy of these regulations. 12. CODE REQUIREMENTS All construction and rehabilitation projects must satisfy the requirements of applicable local, state, and federal building, mechanical, plumbing, fire, energy and barrier -free codes. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 28 C.F.R. Part 35 will be required, as specified by the local building Department. 13. CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION A. "Confidential Information" as used in this section includes: 1. All material provided to the Grantee by COMMERCE that is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; 2. All material produced by the Grantee that is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; and 3. All personal information in the possession of the Grantee that may not be disclosed under state or federal law. "Personal information" includes but is not limited to information related to a person's name, health, finances, education, business, use of government services, addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, driver's license number and other identifying numbers, and "Protected Health Information" under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). B. The Grantee shall comply with all state and federal laws related to the use, sharing, transfer, sale, or disclosure of Confidential Information. The Grantee shall use Confidential Information solely for the purposes of this Grant and shall not use, share, transfer, sell or disclose any Confidential Information to any third party except with the prior written consent of COMMERCE or as may be required by law. The Grantor shall take all necessary steps to assure that Confidential Information is safeguarded to prevent unauthorized use, sharing, transfer, sale or disclosure of Confidential Information or violation of any state or federal laws related thereto. Upon request, the Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with its policies and procedures on confidentiality. COMMERCE may require changes to such policies and procedures as they apply to this Grant whenever COMMERCE reasonably determines that changes are necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosures. The Grantee shall make the changes within the time period specified by COMMERCE. Upon request, the Grantee shall immediately return to COMMERCE any Confidential Information that COMMERCE reasonably determines has not been adequately protected by the Grantee against unauthorized disclosure. 11 Packet Pg. 126 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS C. Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. The Grantee shall notify COMMERCE within five (5) working days of any unauthorized use or disclosure of any confidential information, and shall take necessary steps to mitigate the harmful effects of such use or disclosure. 14. CONFORMANCE If any provision of this contract violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, the COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to the Grantee terminate this contract if it is found after due notice and examination by COMMERCE that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapters 42.52 RCW and 42.23 RCW; or any similar statute involving the Grantee in the procurement of, or performance under this contract. Specific restrictions apply to contracting with current or former state employees pursuant to chapter 42.52 of the Revised Code of Washington. The Grantee and their subcontractor(s) must identify any person employed in any capacity by the state of Washington that worked on the Commerce program administering this contract, including but not limited to formulating or drafting the legislation, participating in grant procurement planning and execution, awarding grants, and monitoring grants, during the 24 month period preceding the start date of this Grant. Identify the individual by name, the agency previously or currently employed by, job title or position held, and separation date. If it is determined by COMMERCE that a conflict of interest exists, the Grantee may be disqualified from further consideration for the award of a Grant. In the event this contract is terminated as provided above, COMMERCE shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the Contractor as it could pursue in the event of a breach of the contract by the Grantee. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE provided for in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The existence of facts upon which COMMERCE makes any determination under this clause shall be an issue and may be reviewed as provided in the "Disputes" clause of this contract. 16. COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS Unless otherwise provided, all Materials produced under this Grant shall be considered "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act and shall be owned by COMMERCE. COMMERCE shall be considered the author of such Materials. In the event the Materials are not considered "works for hire" under the U.S. Copyright laws, the Grantee hereby irrevocably assigns all right, title, and interest in all Materials, including all intellectual property rights, moral rights, and rights of publicity to COMMERCE effective from the moment of creation of such Materials. "Materials" means all items in any format and includes, but is not limited to, data, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books, magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. "Ownership" includes the right to copyright, patent, register and the ability to transfer these rights. For Materials that are delivered under the Grant, but that incorporate pre-existing materials not produced under the Grant, the Grantee hereby grants to COMMERCE a nonexclusive, royalty -free, irrevocable license (with rights to sublicense to others) in such Materials to translate, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, and publicly display. The Grantee warrants and represents that the Grantee has all rights and permissions, including intellectual property rights, moral rights and rights of publicity, necessary to grant such a license to COMMERCE. The Grantee shall exert all reasonable effort to advise COMMERCE, at the time of delivery of Materials furnished under this Grant, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance of this Grant. The Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with prompt written notice of each notice or claim of infringement received by the Grantee with respect to any Materials delivered under this Grant. COMMERCE shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the Materials by the Grantee. 12 Packet Pg. 127 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 17. DISALLOWED COSTS The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its Subcontractors. 18. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Grant, when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by direct negotiation, either party may request a dispute hearing with the Director of COMMERCE, who may designate a neutral person to decide the dispute. The request for a dispute hearing must: • be in writing; • state the disputed issues; • state the relative positions of the parties; • state the Contractor's name, address, and Grant number; and • be mailed to the Director and the other party's (respondent's) Contract Representative within three (3) working days after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute. The respondent shall send a written answer to the requestor's statement to both the Director or the Director's designee and the requestor within five (5) working days. The Director or designee shall review the written statements and reply in writing to both parties within ten (10) working days. The Director or designee may extend this period if necessary by notifying the parties. The decision shall not be admissible in any succeeding judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Nothing in this Grant shall be construed to limit the parties' choice of a mutually acceptable alternate dispute resolution (ADR) method in addition to the dispute hearing procedure outlined above. 19. DUPLICATE PAYMENT The Grantee certifies that work to be performed under this contract does not duplicate any work to be charged against any other contract, subcontract, or other source. 20. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Grant shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. 21. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state of Washington, COMMERCE, agencies of the state and all officials, agents and employees of the state, for, from and against all claims for injuries or death arising out of, or resulting from, the performance of the contract. "Claim" as used in this contract, means any financial loss, claim, suit, action, damage, or expense, including but not limited to attorney's fees, attributable for bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or injury to or the destruction of tangible property including loss of use resulting therefrom. The Grantee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by Grantee's agents, employees, representatives, or any subcontractor or its employees. Grantee expressly agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State for any claim arising out of or incident to Grantee's or any subcontractor's performance or failure to perform the contract. Grantee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State shall not be eliminated or reduced by any actual or alleged concurrent negligence of State or its agents, agencies, employees and officials. The Grantee waives its immunity under Title 51 RCW to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the state and its agencies, officers, agents or employees. 13 Packet Pg. 128 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 22. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE GRANTEE The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Grant. The Grantee and its employees or agents performing under this Grant are not employees or agents of the state of Washington or COMMERCE. The Grantee will not hold itself out as or claim to be an officer or employee of COMMERCE or of the state of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Grantee make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to such officer or employee under law. Conduct and control of the work will be solely with the Grantee. 23. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of Title 51 RCW, Industrial Insurance. If the Grantee fails to provide industrial insurance coverage or fails to pay premiums or penalties on behalf of its employees as may be required by law, COMMERCE may collect from the Grantee the full amount payable to the Industrial Insurance Accident Fund. COMMERCE may deduct the amount owed by the Grantee to the accident fund from the amount payable to the Grantee by COMMERCE under this Grant, and transmit the deducted amount to the Department of Labor and Industries, (L&I) Division of Insurance Services. This provision does not waive any of L&I's rights to collect from the Grantee. 24. LAWS The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and policies of local, state, and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended. 25. LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION The Grantee shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensing, accreditation and registration requirements or standards necessary for the performance of this Grant. 26. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY Only the Authorized Representative or Authorized Representative's designee by writing (designation to be made prior to action) shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this Grant. 27. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS During the performance of this Grant, the Grantee shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Grantee's non-compliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy, this contract may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part, and the Grantee may be declared ineligible for further contracts with COMMERCE. The Grantee shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with the "Disputes" procedure set forth herein. The funds provided under this contract may not be used to fund religious worship, exercise, or instruction. No person shall be required to participate in any religious worship, exercise, or instruction in order to have access to the facilities funded by this grant. 28. PAY EQUITY The Grantee agrees to ensure that "similarly employed" individuals in its workforce are compensated as equals, consistent with the following: A. Employees are "similarly employed" if the individuals work for the same employer, the performance of the job requires comparable skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. Job titles alone are not determinative of whether employees are similarly employed; B. Grantee may allow differentials in compensation for its workers if the differentials are based in good faith and on any of the following: (i) A seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; a bona fide job -related factor or factors; or a bona fide regional difference in compensation levels. 14 Packet Pg. 129 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS (ii) A bona fide job -related factor or factors may include, but not be limited to, education, training, or experience that is: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender -based differential; and accounts for the entire differential. (iii) A bona fide regional difference in compensation level must be: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender -based differential; and account for the entire differential. This Grant may be terminated by the Department, if the Department or the Department of Enterprise services determines that the Grantee is not in compliance with this provision. 29. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Political activity of Grantee employees and officers are limited by the State Campaign Finances and Lobbying provisions of Chapter 42.17A RCW and the Federal Hatch Act, 5 USC 1501 - 1508. No funds may be used for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public office. 30. PREVAILING WAGE LAW The Grantee certifies that all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the Project shall comply with state Prevailing Wages on Public Works, Chapter 39.12 RCW, as applicable to the Project funded by this contract, including but not limited to the filing of the "Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages" and "Affidavit of Wages Paid" as required by RCW 39.12.040. The Grantee shall maintain records sufficient to evidence compliance with Chapter 39.12 RCW, and shall make such records available for COMMERCE's review upon request.. The Grantee shall consult with the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) as may be required to determine the applicability of prevailing wage to the Project. 31. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS A Grantee which is a local government or Indian Tribal government must establish procurement policies and procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200 for all purchases funded by this contract. All recipients of funds under this Contract, including Contractor and subrecipients or subcontractors of any tier, must follow the procurement standards in 2 CFR §§ 200.318 through 200.327, including ensuring that the procurement method used for the contracts are appropriate based on the dollar amount and conditions specified in 2 CFR § 200.320. The Grantee's procurement system should include but not necessarily be limited to, the following: A. General procurement standards 2 CFR 200.318. A code or standard of conduct that shall govern the performance of its officers, employees, or agents engaged in the awarding of contracts using federal funds. B. Competition 2 CFR 200.319. Procedures that ensure all procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and 2§ 00.320. C. Methods of procurement to be followed 2 CFR 20§ 0.320. D. Contracting with small and minority businesses, women's business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms 2 CFR 2§ 00.321. E. Domestic preferences for procurements 2 CFR 2� 00.322. 15 Packet Pg. 130 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 32. PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION The funds provided under this Grant shall not be used in payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining approval of the application for such funds or any other approval or concurrence under this Grant provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical consultant, managerial, or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as project costs. 33. PUBLICITY The Grantee agrees not to publish or use any advertising or publicity materials in which the state of Washington or COMMERCE's name is mentioned, or language used from which the connection with the state of Washington's or COMMERCE's name may reasonably be inferred or implied, without the prior written consent of COMMERCE. 34. RECAPTURE In the event that the Grantee fails to perform this contract in accordance with state laws, federal laws, and/or the provisions of this contract, COMMERCE reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount to compensate COMMERCE for the noncompliance in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. Repayment by the Grantee of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within the time period specified by COMMERCE. In the alternative, COMMERCE may recapture such funds from payments due under this contract. 35. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The Grantee shall maintain books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this contract and performance of the services described herein, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this contract. The Grantee shall retain such records for a period of six years following the date of final payment. At no additional cost, these records, including materials generated under the contract, shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review or audit by COMMERCE, personnel duly authorized by COMMERCE, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, regulation or agreement. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. 36. REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE If required by law, the Grantee shall complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue. 37. RIGHT OF INSPECTION At no additional cost all records relating to the Grantee's performance under this Grant shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, and audit by COMMERCE, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this Grant. The Grantee shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose. 38. SAVINGS In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Grant and prior to normal completion, COMMERCE may terminate the Grant under the "Termination for Convenience" clause, without the ten business day notice requirement. In lieu of termination, the Grant may be amended to reflect the new funding limitations and conditions. 16 Packet Pg. 131 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 39. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this contract are intended to be severable. If any term or provision is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the contract. 40. SUBCONTRACTING The Grantee may only subcontract work contemplated under this Grant if it obtains the prior written approval of COMMERCE. If COMMERCE approves subcontracting, the Grantee shall maintain written procedures related to subcontracting, as well as copies of all subcontracts and records related to subcontracts. For cause, COMMERCE in writing may: (a) require the Grantee to amend its subcontracting procedures as they relate to this Grant; (b) prohibit the Grantee from subcontracting with a particular person or entity; or (c) require the Grantee to rescind or amend a subcontract. Every subcontract shall bind the Subcontractor to follow all applicable terms of this Grant. The Grantee is responsible to COMMERCE if the Subcontractor fails to comply with any applicable term or condition of this Grant. The Grantee shall appropriately monitor the activities of the Subcontractor to assure fiscal conditions of this Grant. In no event shall the existence of a subcontract operate to release or reduce the liability of the Grantee to COMMERCE for any breach in the performance of the Grantee's duties. Every subcontract shall include a term that COMMERCE and the State of Washington are not liable for claims or damages arising from a Subcontractor's performance of the subcontract. 41. SURVIVAL The terms, conditions, and warranties contained in this Grant that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Grant shall so survive. 42. TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, the Grantee's income or gross receipts, any other taxes, insurance or expenses for the Grantee or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. 43. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE In the event COMMERCE determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of this contract in a timely manner, COMMERCE has the right to suspend or terminate this contract. Before suspending or terminating the contract, COMMERCE shall notify the Grantee in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within 30 calendar days, the contract may be terminated or suspended. In the event of termination or suspension, the Grantee shall be liable for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, any cost difference between the original contract and the replacement or cover contract and all administrative costs directly related to the replacement contract, e.g., cost of the competitive bidding, mailing, advertising and staff time. COMMERCE reserves the right to suspend all or part of the contract, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Grantee from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach and pending corrective action by the Grantee or a decision by COMMERCE to terminate the contract. A termination shall be deemed a "Termination for Convenience" if it is determined that the Grantee: (1) was not in default; or (2) failure to perform was outside of his or her control, fault or negligence. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE provided in this contract are not exclusive and are, in addition to any other rights and remedies, provided by law. 17 Packet Pg. 132 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 44. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Except as otherwise provided in this Grant COMMERCE may, by ten (10) business days written notice, beginning on the second day after the mailing, terminate this Grant, in whole or in part. If this Grant is so terminated, COMMERCE shall be liable only for payment required under the terms of this Grant for services rendered or goods delivered prior to the effective date of termination. 45. TERMINATION PROCEDURES Upon termination of this contract, COMMERCE, in addition to any other rights provided in this contract, may require the Grantee to deliver to COMMERCE any property specifically produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this contract as has been terminated. The provisions of the "Treatment of Assets" clause shall apply in such property transfer. COMMERCE shall pay to the Grantee the agreed upon price, if separately stated, for completed work and services accepted by COMMERCE, and the amount agreed upon by the Grantee and COMMERCE for (i) completed work and services for which no separate price is stated, (ii) partially completed work and services, (iii) other property or services that are accepted by COMMERCE, and (iv) the protection and preservation of property, unless the termination is for default, in which case the authorized Representative shall determine the extent of the liability of COMMERCE. Failure to agree with such determination shall be a dispute within the meaning of the "Disputes" clause of this contract. COMMERCE may withhold from any amounts due the Grantee such sum as the Authorized Representative determines to be necessary to protect COMMERCE against potential loss or liability. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE provided in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Authorized Representative, the Grantee shall: A. Stop work under the contract on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice; B. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, services, or facilities except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the contract that is not terminated; C. Assign to COMMERCE, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative, all of the rights, title, and interest of the Grantee, under the orders and subcontracts so terminated, in which case COMMERCE has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and subcontracts; D. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Authorized Representative to the extent the Authorized Representative may require, which approval or ratification shall be final for all the purposes of this clause; E. Transfer title to COMMERCE and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative any property which, if the contract had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to COMMERCE; F. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Authorized Representative; and G. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Authorized Representative may direct, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this contract, which is in the possession of the Grantee and in which COMMERCE has or may acquire an interest. 18 Packet Pg. 133 8.10.a GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAPITAL FEDERALFUNDS 46. TREATMENT OF ASSETS Title to all property furnished by COMMERCE shall remain in COMMERCE. Title to all property furnished by the Grantee, for the cost of which the Grantee is entitled to be reimbursed as a direct item of cost under this contract, shall pass to and vest in COMMERCE upon delivery of such property by the Grantee. Title to other property, the cost of which is reimbursable to the Grantee under this contract, shall pass to and vest in COMMERCE upon (i) issuance for use of such property in the performance of this contract, or (ii) commencement of use of such property in the performance of this contract, or (iii) reimbursement of the cost thereof by COMMERCE in whole or in part, whichever first occurs. A. Any property of COMMERCE furnished to the Grantee shall, unless otherwise provided herein or approved by COMMERCE, be used only for the performance of this contract. B. The Grantee shall be responsible for any loss or damage to property of COMMERCE that results from the negligence of the Grantee or which results from the failure on the part of the Grantee to maintain and administer that property in accordance with sound management practices. C. If any COMMERCE property is lost, destroyed or damaged, the Grantee shall immediately notify COMMERCE and shall take all reasonable steps to protect the property from further damage. D. The Grantee shall surrender to COMMERCE all property of COMMERCE prior to settlement upon completion, termination or cancellation of this contract All reference to the Grantee under this clause shall also include Grantee's employees, agents or Subcontractors. 47. WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant unless stated to be such in writing and signed by Authorized Representative of COMMERCE. 48. WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS The Grant Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333)-Where applicable, all contracts awarded by recipients in excess of $100,000 for construction and other purposes that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with Section 102 and 107 of the Grant Work Hours Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5). Under Section 102 of the Act, each subcontractor is required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1 '/2 times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. Section 107 of the Act is applicable to construction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic is required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. 19 Packet Pg. 134 8.10.a Attachment A SCOPE OF WORK Funds awarded under this grant will be used for capital expenditures for the Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments, a 52-unit affordable multifamily housing development. The location of the project is: Vacant Land 236th Street Southwest, Edmonds, WA 98026 Project activities will include and be limited to the construction of the following utility improvements: Connect the proposed onsite stormwater system to the existing system in 236th St SW. The stormwater system is based on utilization of a 30,000 cubic foot, below -grade concrete detention vault which will capture the sites water via catch basins and drains, then utilize a flow control structure to release this in a controlled, predetermined rate into the existing City of Edmonds storm system. This cost includes the supply and install of all storm utility specific work: earthwork, materials, asphalt cutting/patching, sidewalk replacement where the utility comes from offsite main into the site, and flagging. This project is expected to be complete by November 30, 2024. The "Copyright Provisions", Section 16 of the General Terms and Conditions, are not intended to apply to any architectural and engineering design work funded by this grant. Based on the criteria within the state capital budget, SSB 1080 Sec 1074, (Laws of 2021), and criteria developed by Commerce to ensure the terms of the appropriation are met, all grants must meet the following criteria: • Applicant must be a city, county or public utility district, applying in coordination with the developer of a multi -unit affordable housing project, located within a jurisdiction that imposed a sales and use tax under RCW 82.14.530(1)(a)(ii), 82.14.530(1)(b)(i)(B), 82.14.540, or 84.52.105. • The utility project must serve new multi -unit affordable1 housing projects that serve and benefit low-income households.2 If the project is a mixed -income project, the affordable portion of the development must be at least 25%. • The affordable housing project should be part of a program that will monitor affordability for a minimum of 25 years, such as the Housing Trust Fund, low-income housing tax credits, housing authority, or a city monitoring process. A covenant and/or note and deed of trust may be required as part of securitization to ensure affordability. 1 "Affordable housing" has the same meaning as in RCW 43.185A.010, and means residential housing for rental occupancy which, as long as the same is occupied by low-income households, requires payment of monthly housing costs, including utilities other than telephone, of no more than thirty percent of the family's income. In the context of homeownership, the definition from the Housing Trust Fund Handbook applies (Section 701.7): "affordability occurs when a household's monthly housing costs are generally no more than 38 percent of monthly household income and total debt is no more than 45 percent of monthly household income. Housing costs include mortgage principal, interest, property taxes, homeowner insurance, homeowner association fees, and land lease fees, as applicable. Total debt includes other debt and utilities." 2 "Low-income household" has the same definition as in RCW 43.185.010(6), and means a single person, family or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is less than eighty percent of the median family income, adjusted for household size, for the county where the project is located. 20 Packet Pg. 135 8.10.a Attachment A CERTIFICATION PERFORMANCE MEASURE — SCOPE OF WORK The GRANTEE, by its signature, certifies that the declaration set forth above has been reviewed and approved by the GRANTEE as of the date and year written below. Michael Nelson, Mayor DATE How this project meets criteria for APRA SLFRF Projects This project aligns to the Expenditure Category 3 of ARPA SLRF, services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities, Housing Support: Affordable Housing EC 2.15,3 Under ARPA's SLFRF guidance, funding for this grant falls under the category of responding to "Public Health and Economic Impacts" of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Within that category of eligible actions, this program is intended to "Building Stronger Communities through Investments in Housing and Neighborhoods" by serving those communities that were hardest hit by the pandemic through investments in affordable housing development. Eligible services include: Affordable housing development to increase supply of affordable and high quality living units. Supporting the development of affordable housing is important to address a limited supply of housing, some of which is inadequate, or of poor quality.' The Interim Final Rule supports this finding by stating that "both the public health and economic impacts of the pandemic have fallen most severely on communities and populations disadvantaged before it began" including "low income communities, people of color, and Tribal communities.115 3 https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf ' See specific language at printed pages 26795 and 26796 of the Interim Final Rule to implement the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund and the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund established under ARPA). 5 Ibid, page 26787. 21 Packet Pg. 136 8.10.a Attachment B CERTIFICATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PROJECT Type of Funding Source Description and purpose Amount CHIP Grant Washington State Department of Commerce $1,361,011 Other Sources Source #1 Snohomish County HOME Loan $1,100,000 Source #2 Snohomish County CDMH Loan $793,222 Source #3 Washington State Department of Commerce $4,775,000 Loan Source #4 Beneficial State Bank Construction Loan $16,500,000 Source #5 Sponsor Loan (from Housing Hope) $955,929 Total Other Funds T $24,124,151 Total Project Funding $25,485,162 CERTIFICATION PERFORMANCE MEASURE - AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS The GRANTEE by its signature, certifies that project funding from sources other than those provided by this Grant Agreement has either been expended for eligible Project expenses, or is committed in writing and available and will remain committed and available solely and specifically for carrying out the purposes of this Project as described in elsewhere in this Grant Agreement, as of the date and year written below. The GRANTEE shall maintain records sufficient to evidence that it has expended or has access to the funds needed to complete the Project, and shall make such records available for COMMERCE's review upon reasonable request. Michael Nelson, Mayor DATE 22 Q Packet Pg. 137 8.10.a Attachment C CERTIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT AND REPORTING OF PREVAILING WAGES The GRANTEE, by its signature, certifies that all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the Project shall comply with prevailing wage laws set forth in Chapter 39.12 RCW, as applicable to the Project funded by this Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the filing of the "Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages" and "Affidavit of Wages Paid" as required by RCW 39.12.040. See Section 30 of the General Terms and Conditions. Before invoices are paid, the "awarding agency" must provide documentation of the "intent to pay commercial prevailing wages". Before the final funds are paid from the state, an "affidavit of wages paid" from L&I must also be provided. The GRANTEE or assignee, shall maintain records sufficient to evidence compliance with Chapter 39.12 RCW, and shall make such records available for COMMERCE's review upon request. CERTIFICATION PERFORMANCE MEASURE — PREVAILING WAGES The GRANTEE, by its signature, certifies that the declaration set forth above has been reviewed and approved by the GRANTEE and their subcontractors as of the date and year written below. Michael Nelson, Mayor DATE 23 Packet Pg. 138 8.10.b CITY OF EDMONDS GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CONNECTING HOUSING TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM (CHIP) THIS GRANT AGREEMENT ("Grant Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between the City of Edmonds (the "City"), a Washington municipal corporation, and Housing Hope, a public benefit nonprofit corporation (the "Grantee") (collectively the "Parties"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was signed into law on March 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, ARPA provides monetary relief to address the continued impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy, public health, state and local governments, individuals, and businesses; and WHEREAS, ARPA Sec. 9901 provides funding to states and local governments to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the COVID-19 public health emergency; and WHEREAS, state and local governments shall use funds to cover costs incurred by December 31, 2024 to, among other things, respond to the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 emergency; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce ("Commerce") initiated a program for the use of ARPA funds called the Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP); and WHEREAS, the City has entered into a Capital Agreement with Commerce ("Capital Agreement") to use Commerce -provided CHIP Grant funds ("Funds") to support the development of affordable housing by providing funds for utility infrastructure improvements for an affordable housing project located in Edmonds, Washington to be known as Edmonds Lutheran Church Field Apartments ("Field Apartment Project"); and WHEREAS, the Grantee is the sponsor of the Field Apartment Project and a Subcontractor for the City under the Capital Agreement tasked with performing the utility infrastructure improvements for the Field Apartment Project; and WHEREAS, the City and the Grantee wish to memorialize the rights and responsibilities of each with regard to the allocation and use of the Funds; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: Packet Pg. 139 8.10.b Housing Hope Grant Agreement 2023 Page 2 of 6 1. Acknowledgements. The Parties acknowledge and affirm that the Funds provided by the City to the Grantee pursuant to this Grant Agreement are a subaward of federal ARPA grant funds awarded by the federal Department of the Treasury and passed through to the City by Commerce. This subaward is intended as economic support in connection with the COVID-19 public health emergency and related economic crisis to assist with utility infrastructure construction -related expenses incurred during the period of March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024. The Grantee's unique entity identifier is EIN 94-3060709. The City is operating under the Washington FAIN SLF0002 and CFDA Number 21.027. The City's 2021 Nonentitlement Unit Recipient Number assigned by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management for disbursement of ARPA funds to nonentitlement cities is WA0365, the Federal Award Date is July 1, 2021, and the Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Dates are July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2023. The End Date may be extended contingent upon reappropriation. The City's awarding official is Mayor Mike Nelson, whose contact information is included in Section 15 ("Notices"), below. As a Subcontractor for the City under the Capital Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the Grantee agrees that the terms of the Capital Agreement will govern the use of the Funds provided hereunder and the Grantee agrees to be bound by all applicable provisions of the Capital Agreement. Commerce and the State of Washington are not liable for claims or damages arising from the Subcontractor's performance of the subcontract. 2. Grant Funds. Grant funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis as provided in the Capital Agreement. 3. Allowable Uses. The Funds provided pursuant to this Grant Agreement are to be loaned by the Grantee to an affiliate of Grantee, ELCFA LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("ELCFA"), and used by ELCFA for the installation of utilities at the Field Apartment Project, located at 8215 236th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, Parcel ID #00576700002614, which will be a 52-unit affordable multi -family housing development with four (4) three-story structures totaling approximately 49,793 square feet. The development will include supportive services, staff offices, community amenities, street frontage and on -site improvements, as well as off -site sports court improvements. All fifty-two units will serve families with children. The intent is that half of the units will be dedicated to families coming directly from homelessness (the "Homeless Units") to the extent that the Field Apartments Project receives the necessary operating and/or service subsidies to support the operation of the Homeless Units, and all units will be for families with low income who earn less than fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, which equates to $57,850 for a family of four. The utility project activities will be as described in the Capital Agreement, Attachment A — Scope of Work. Housing Hope warrants that the Field Apartment Project will serve and benefit low-income households and provide affordability for at least twenty-five (25) years, as required in Section 17 of the Capital Agreement. 4. Records Maintenance. The Grantee will maintain books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Agreement (collectively referred to herein as "Records"). The Records will be subject to inspection by the City at all reasonable times, and will be retained by the Grantee for a period of six (6) years following the termination of this Agreement. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the Records will be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the materials have been resolved. Packet Pg. 140 8.10.b Housing Hope Grant Agreement 2023 Page 3 of 6 5. Reporting. The Grantee will provide regular written financial and performance reports to the City as requested, but no less often than quarterly, to include, at a minimum, information on the amount of Funds expended and a detailed accounting of the uses of the Funds. Such reports will be in compliance with the requirements of the Capital Agreement. 6. Term and Termination of Agreement. This Grant Agreement will be in effect as of the effective date listed below through December 31, 2024. The City may earlier terminate this Grant Agreement, and require repayment of either a portion or the entirety of the Funds if it determines that the Grantee has defaulted on any of its obligations under this Grant Agreement, after giving the Grantee a reasonable opportunity, not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days, to cure such default. 7. Amendments. This Grant Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party. 8. Compliance with Laws. The Parties will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and policies of local, state and federal governments, as they now exist or are hereafter amended, including those relating to the recipients or subrecipients of federal awards. Federal award laws include, but are not limited to, the applicable provisions of the Assurances of Compliance with Civil Rights Requirements set forth in Attachment B (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). The Grantee will comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from excluding from a program or activity, denying benefits of, or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq.), as implemented by the Department of the Treasury's Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. Title VI also includes protections to persons with "Limited English Proficiency" in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq., as implemented by the Department of the Treasury's Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, and herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Grant Agreement. 9. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any default or breach of any provision of this Grant Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Grant Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant Agreement unless stated to be such in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party. 10. Non -assignable. Neither this Grant Agreement nor any claim arising under this Grant Agreement shall be transferred or assigned without the prior express written consent of the City. 11. Severability. The provisions of this Grant Agreement are intended to be severable. If any term or provision hereof is held to be void, illegal, unenforceable, or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity will not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Packet Pg. 141 8.10.b Housing Hope Grant Agreement 2023 Page 4 of 6 12. Survival. The terms, conditions and warranties contained in this Grant Agreement that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Grant Agreement will so survive. 13. Governing Law and Venue. This Grant Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Snohomish County. 14. Indemnification. Each party will be solely responsible for the acts of its employees, officers, and agents. 15. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds Attn: Mayor Mike Nelson 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Grantee shall be sent to the following address (which must be identical to the address that appears on the business's W-9 form): Housing Hope Attn: Chief Executive Officer 3331 Broadway Avenue Everett, WA 98201 With a copy to: ELCFA LLC c/o Housing Hope Attn: Chief Executive Officer 3331 Broadway Avenue Everett, WA 98201 And with a copy to: NEF Assignment Corporation 10 South Riverside Plaza Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60606 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. Packet Pg. 142 8.10.b Housing Hope Grant Agreement 2023 Page 5 of 6 16. Entire Written Agreement. This document and the attachments hereto represent the entire agreement, written or oral, between the Parties. No representation or other oral agreement by either party shall survive the execution of this Grant Agreement. This Grant Agreement shall be amended only upon the express written agreement of both Parties. 17. Effective Date. The effective date of this Grant Agreement shall be the date set forth below. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2023. HOUSING HOPE, a Washington public benefit nonprofit corporation Donna Moulton, Chief Executive Officer Packet Pg. 143 8.10.b Housing Hope Grant Agreement 2023 Page 6 of 6 HOUSING HOPE NOTARY BLOCK STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Donna Moulton is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Chief Executive Officer of Housing Hope, a Washington public benefit nonprofit corporation, to be the free and voluntary act such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: Print Name: Residing at: My appointment expires: Packet Pg. 144 HOUSING HOPE Jeff Chandler, Senior Housing Developer, jeffchandler@housinghope Not more than every 30 days, provide: Invoice of eligible expenses • Project status report F Documentation of costs • Certification of the Payment and M Reporting of Prevailing Wages • Reportable expense form a At project closeout: IN • Submit final project report on form to be provided by Commerce PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Review: David Levitan (or assignee), Planning Manager Inspections: Jeff Whatmore, Engineering Reviews the documentation provided by Housing Hope. Verifies work was completed by checking inspections in TRAKiT and/or communication with Engineering/Public Works staff. Complete form A-19. Submit completed A-19 form and documentation provided by Housing Hope to Secure Access ,Washington Site. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Eric Guida, Senior Planner, eric.guida@commerce.wa.gov • Reviews documentation provided for compliance. • Issues approval or denial withi 30 days. • If approved, disbursement of 10 funds is issued to the City within one week. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Nori Jacobson (or another assignee per Dave Turley), ,Accounting Specialist • Create an accounting procedure to receive and deposit grant funds from Commerce. Commerce can provide funds in either electronic or check form. • Issue payment to Housing Hope from the funds received from Commerce. 8.1 O.d s*Ar�oA WASHINGTON STATE a '� DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE n5 i8aa �� AGENCY NUMBER Short Code Commerce Contract Number VOUCHER DISTRIBUTION 1030 Form 19-1A � C INSTRUCTION TO VENDOR OR CLAIMANT: y DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PO BOX 42525 Submit this form to claim payment for materials, merchandise or services. Show O OLYMPIA, WA 98504-2525 Complete detail for each item. _ t VENDOR OR CLAIMANT (Warrant is to be payable to:) Ventlor's Certificate: The individual signing this voucher below warrants they have the authority to do so as authorized and on behalf of the entity identified in the Vendor/Claimant section. The individual signing below certifies under penalty of perjury that the items and totals listed herein are proper charges for materials, merchandise or services furnished to }r the State of Washington, and that all goods furnished and/or services rendered have been provided without discrimination because of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, handicap, religion or Vietnam era or disabled veterans status. c G d L By: Q Contact Person: Phone: (SIGN IN BLUE INK) +' C L (' Email: - Contract Period: REPORT PERIOD: (TITLE) (DATE) a_ PREVIOUSLY DATE DESCRIPTION BUDGET REQUESTED AMOUNT THIS INVOICE AWARD REMAINING BALANCE E 6- 0 O L a N 6- 0 .y O V d �O♦ V TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 . . E L O tL Match: Year/ Dollars I Coding PROGRAM APPROVAL (The individual signing this Youcher warrants they have the authorty to sign this voucher.) +' DATE C ry PRINTED NAME: SIGNATURE: DOG DATE CURRENT DOC. NO. REFERENCE DOC NO. VENDOR NUMBER and SUFFIX L ACCOUNT N0. ASD NUMBER VENDOR MESSAGE �C G SUB TRANS MASTER SUB OBJ SUB GL SUBSID AMOUNT INVOICE r CODE INDEX OBJ ACCT r Q (Cv G V Q r SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING PREPARER FOR PAYMENT DATE WARRANTTOTAL FOR PAYMENT GATE I-COUIT11,16APPROVAIL Packet Pg. 146 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Public Hearing on permanent ordinance for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Michael Clugston Background/History The City Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. Per RCW 36.70A.390, interim ordinances may remain in effect for up to six months. As such, a permanent ordinance needs to be adopted by Council before June 10, 2023, in order to maintain any of the provisions of the interim ordinance. Interim Ordinance 4283 added an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The interim ordinance amends the development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in August 2017 via Ordinance 4078. Ordinance 4078 established a step back requirement for buildings that are adjacent to IRS (single-family) zones. Interim Ordinance 4283 added the same step back requirement when a proposed building in the CG zone is located across the street from an IRS zone, "unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board." The interim code language also requires a two-phase design review process by the ADB, like that in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet. Buildings less than 35 feet tall would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff. This requirement currently applies to all properties in the CG zone, including those not adjacent to or across the street from IRS zones. Prior to Ordinance 4283, the Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (4278) in October 2022 that contained required step back language. That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the concept of requiring step backs for buildings across the street from IRS zones was carried forward as part of Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process. The Planning Board and ADB spent several meetings discussing potential language for a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283 at several meetings. The ADB discussed interim ordinance 4283 at their January 26, 2023 meeting and began deliberations on language for a permanent ordinance at their regular meeting on February 23, with the discussion continued at a special meeting on March 8. The Planning Board discussed the interim ordinance at their February 15 special meeting before holding a public hearing to consider the ADB's recommended language on April 12, which was continued to April 26. The minutes from the ADB meetings are included in Attachment 3, while the minutes from the February 15 and April 12 Planning Board meetings are included in Attachment 4 and the minutes of the Packet Pg. 147 9.1 April 26 meeting are included as Attachment 9. Videos of all six meetings are available on the city website. Regarding the design review process in the CG zone, the ADB unanimously approved a motion on February 23 recommending: 1. A two-phase public hearing process and decision by the ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet in height when across from or adjacent to RS zone properties, and 2. A Type II staff review process for all other projects in the CG zone with buildings greater than 35 feet in height, which would provide an opportunity for public comment on those projects (such as properties along Highway 99) without a public hearing. Under the ADB's recommendation, all projects less than 35 feet in height in the CG zone would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff using the Type I process (no public notice). The ADB also discussed options for building step backs, with a focus on buildings across the street from an RS zone. There was general agreement in support of the Board having discretion about when to apply building step backs in the CG zone, which has been the case since the adoption of Ordinance 4078 in 2017. There was less consensus about what the appropriate step back should be and whether that should be applied uniformly when projects are across the street from an RS zone, with the applicant required to demonstrate why the step back should not be required. At a special meeting on March 8, the Board reviewed several generalized sketches created by staff to better visualize the interaction of building heights, step backs, and right-of-way widths and discussed the option of altering the step back language from the interim ordinance, eliminating it entirely, or keeping it. At that meeting, the ADB approved a motion on a 4-3 vote to retain the step back language from the interim ordinance in the permanent ordinance, which requires a step back when RS-zoned properties are located across the street from the CG zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. The minority opinion was to remove the automatic step back requirement for properties across the street (unless waived by the ADB at the Phase I public hearing) and instead rely on the ADB's existing discretion to require design changes when deemed necessary, including step backs. The Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12 to consider the ADB's recommendation and to make their recommendation to City Council. The Board heard a staff presentation, took public comments, and began discussion and deliberation before opting to continue the public hearing to April 26 to allow for additional research and deliberation. After the April 12 meeting, a subcommittee of the Planning Board (Chair Gladstone, Member Golembiewski, and Member Mitchell) met and prepared two additional documents that are included as Attachments 5 and 6. Attachment 5 includes a narrative that outlines the Working Group's understanding of the goals of the emergency ordinance and four options for moving forward. In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup identified four goals: 1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones. 2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to Packet Pg. 148 9.1 RS zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process. 3. Certainty for builders. 4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that would require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a maximum of one public meeting. The subgroup identified the following four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283: 1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with potential modification to reflect the ADB recommendation regarding Type II -A review process for projects not adjacent or across the street from RS zones). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review and instead require administrative staff review with public notice/comments (a Type II -A review process). 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require a 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55- feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55-feet and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate requirement to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting (a Type II -A review process). Attachment 6 contains three renderings prepared by Board Member Mitchell that were considered based on the options discussed above: Top image: The ADB's recommendation for buildings across the street from RS-zoned parcels - a 10' step back from the required setback above 25' in height and a 20' step back from the required setback above 55' in height (the same step -back language as is in interim ordinance 4283) Middle image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings less than 55' in height across the street from RS-zone parcels - no step backs required. Bottom image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings greater than 55' in height - 10' step back above 25' and a 30' step back above 55' In making their recommendation to create clear and objective step back requirements for buildings above and below 55' in height and removing the option for the ADB to waive these requirements "if deemed unnecessary", the Working Group referenced House Bill (HB) 1293, which had passed the state legislature at that point and has since been signed by Governor Inslee. HB 1293 will require the city to amend its development code to include only clear and objective design standards and revise its design review processes so as not to require more than one public meeting. The ADB currently utilizes a two- phase public hearing that would need to be amended to comply with state law. A summary of HB 1293 is included as a weblink. Overall, the Working Group believed that the need for ADB review would be eliminated by the inclusion of clearer and more objective step back requirements. After deliberation on April 26, the Planning Board unanimously approved a motion to recommend Option 4 developed by the Working Group, which would: Remove step back requirements for buildings in the CG zone at/under 55' in height that are adjacent or across the street from RS zones; For buildings over 55' in height adjacent or across the street from RS zones, maintain the 10' Packet Pg. 149 9.1 step back requirement at 25' of building height and increase the step back requirement (from 20' to 30') at 55' of building height; while removing the discretion to remove this requirement; and 3. Eliminate ADB review of CG projects adjacent to or across the street from RS zones, and instead require Type II -A review, which includes public notice and public comments. Staff worked with the Planning Board Chair to develop a formal Planning Board recommendation letter, which is included as Attachment 8. On May 2, City Council reviewed and discussed the Planning Board's recommendation for permanent language to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (a link to the May 2 video is provided). Regarding step backs, there was consensus that Option 4 created by the Working Group provided a clear and objective step back standard which strikes a balance for transitions to RS zones as envisioned in the Highway 99 subarea plan and predictability for developers. Regarding process, the Planning Board recommended creating a Type II review process for projects that include a building greater than 35 feet tall that are adjacent to or across the street from RS-zoned property (staff decision with public notice). On May 2, Council directed staff to maintain the existing processes for buildings greater than 75 feet in height (ADB review) with all other projects in the CG zone requiring design review done by staff (Type I decision with no public notice). Staff has prepared a revised StFik gh/underline version of impacted code sections for the potential permanent ordinance, which is shown in Attachment 7. Staff Recommendation Take public testimony and review public comments that were received during the Architectural Design Board and Planning Board review process (Attachment 11). Ask any final questions about the proposed code language shown in Attachment 7 and provide guidance to staff about any desired revisions. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance for a decision on May 23. Narrative Several related pieces of code are recommended for update in the draft permanent language to clarify the existing design review process codes or the proposed changes, which are shown in *Fi'-g;/underline text in Attachment 7: 1) The illustration in ECDC 16.60.020.D is proposed to be updated prior to final adoption by Council to reflect the step back language that is eventually approved, and which Board Member Mitchell did an excellent job in illustrating. 2) Type II -A design review process added to table in ECDC 20.01.003.A for buildings greater than 35' that are adjacent to or across the street from RS zone. 3) Staff is proposing to eliminate the process language in ECDC 20.12.080, since it was added to the table in ECDC 20.01.003.B several years ago. 4) Staff is proposing to remove the process schematic in ECDC 20.12.005.D, which staff believes is confusing. 5) Based on Council direction provided on May 2, staff revised the proposed language in ECDC 16.60.030.D.1 to clarify that the step back requirement only applies to buildings taller than 55 feet, rather than also describing that the step backs are not required for buildings less than 55 feet tall. Attachments: Packet Pg. 150 9.1 Attachment 1- Ordinance 4283 emergency interim CG design review and step backs Attachment 2 - Council minutes for Ord. 4283 on 12.10.22, 1.17.23, 1.24.23 Attachment 3 - Architectural Design Board minutes 1.26.23, 2.23.23, 3.8.23 Attachment 4 - Planning Board minutes 2.15.23 and 4.12.23 Attachment 5 - Options Considered by Planning Board Attachment 6 - Renderings comparing ADB and PB Working Group Recommendations Attachment 7 - Revised Draft CG Design Review and Step Back Language (AMD2022-0008) Attachment 8 - Planning Board Recommendation Attachment 9 - April 26, 2023 Planning Board minutes Attachment 10 - May 2. 2023 Council Presentation Attachment 11- Public Comments 2.7.23 to 4.27.23 opt HB 1293 Bill Report May 2, 2023 City Council meeting video Packet Pg. 151 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ORDINANCE NO.4283 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance 4278; and WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and Packet Pg. 152 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278), step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 153 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13 and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010 (as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020 instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 154 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: DocuSigned by: Nl,L,1�4 MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: DocuSigned by: 7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022 PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4283 al Packet Pg. 155 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this I01h day of December, 2022. DocuSigned by: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 156 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None Y/10'2 U/15'' 75" None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. 2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. Packet Pg. 157 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. IF4 i Q C ro m Y N .- v a a a a� inN 0.N <N -,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r, Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Packet Pg. 158 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Pg. 159 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single- family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. Packet Pg. 160 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has Packet Pg. 161 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart: Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process &Eaa nal}ryyvy 7 RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffw qwo o} AnRrI I COd Cid1u A� DKWW DOW ! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys. I � E � k— — — — — — — ----------_ hood D"ee 4JA41PPV-W [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020 regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the Packet Pg. 162 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. Packet Pg. 163 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. Packet Pg. 164 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: Packet Pg. 165 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. Packet Pg. 166 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.1.a 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. Packet Pg. 167 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.1.a ATTACHMENT A 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. Packet Pg. 168 9.1.b Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. M N 14 N T- ri N ti T r N N O N T O M O N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 169 9.1.b Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 — Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 — Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 — Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 Proposed Code Revisions — 16.60.030 0 16.60.030 Site development standards Design No "Mm Proposed Code Revision — 20.12.010 0 20.12.010 Applicability ■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A decision. ■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. M N 14 N ri N ti N N O N T 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 170 9.1.b Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. M N 14 N T- ri N ti T r N N 0 r N T c 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 171 9.1.b Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that M N 14 N V- ri N ti T r N N O N T c 0 M CO le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 172 9.1.b step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods... Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. M N 14 N V- ri N ti T r N N O r N T O M 00 le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 173 9.1.b Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind." Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type III -A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. M N 14 N V- ri N ti T r N N O N T c 0 M O le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 174 9.1.b Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND." Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. M N N M N ti T N N 0 r N c 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 175 9.1.b Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2 M N 14 N T- ri N ti T N N 0 r N T 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 176 9.1.b 5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 7. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 8. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 763 1 2022-2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 9. SNOHOMISH COUNTY AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH REAL PROPERTY INTEREST 10. TREE BOARD CANDIDATE APPROVAL 11. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE 12. APPROVAL OF SENIOR PERMIT COORDINATOR -ENGINEERING JOB DESCRIPTION 13. CODE UPDATES TO CHANGE MEETING LOCATION OF PLANNING BOARD, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, TREE BOARD, AND ADB 8. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD REVIEW AND BUILDING STEP -BACKS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is a public hearing on the ordinance the council adopted on December 10, 2022; the council is required to hold a public hearing within 60 days since it was an emergency interim ordinance. The ordinance did two things, it created a new process for design review of projects in the CG zone with buildings taller than 35 feet. Currently design review for the CG zone is done entirely by staff. New projects with building 35 feet or taller would go to Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ordinance also added step back language for those buildings in the CG zone. Step backs were covered in a previous version of an interim ordinance, but this language was included with the current ordinance. Step backs are not a requirement, but in their review process, the ADB could require them at their discretion. Mr. Clugston explained the packet contains Ordinance No. 4283 that the council approved on December 10, 2022 as well as the minutes of that meeting. The packet also includes a resolution from 2016 which staff was not completely aware of at the time the emergency ordinance was adopted. Resolution 1367, adopted in 2016, indicated the council's desire to get the council as well as citizen boards out of making quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are when a board or council essentially sit as a judge listening to land use permits. In the case of the council, that was typically closed record reviews; the council still hears closed record appeals of conditional use permits and variances that go to the hearing examiner. No changes were made to the ADB code as a result of Resolution 1367 and the ADB still issues quasi- judicial decisions although Resolution 1367 indicated the council's intent to remove the ADB from making those decisions. The current interim ordinance is asking the ADB to do another review so the current ordinance and Resolution 1367 are somewhat in conflict. The intent of tonight's public hearing is to take public testimony and issue a resolution with findings in support of the interim ordinance. Staff will then go back to the planning board over the next few months and bring a recommendation to council for final regulation. M N 14 N T— M N ti T N N Co r N T c 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 177 9.1.b Public Testimony Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway neighborhood of the Highway 99 subarea, spoke in support of emergency Ordinance 4283. She felt residents had been heard with the council's recent vote to approve funding for the SEIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan and sidewalks on 84' Avenue West between 234' and 238t1i Streets. She thanked the council for making those a priority. Another demonstration of how the council is listening to neighborhood concerns is voting to make Ordinance 4823 permanent. The ordinance is a good solution to address the lack of transition between the CG zone and the single family residential area identified in the Highway 99 subarea plan in 2017. ADB review of building design over 35 feet allows for the right expertise to guide design elements that soften the transition between the zones and provides public process and accountability. Voting tonight to approve the code revision adding one more architect bolsters the ADB's expertise. ADB review in the Highway 99 subarea also allows for parity with the downtown business district which also has building design review by the ADB. Further, including step backs in Ordinance 4283 is very important to eliminating a barrier for addressing neighborhood concerns. The existing code for the ADB in section 3A reads, "The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence." This puts the burden on every community whether this is an issue to produce the clear and convincing evidence required which can require expertise and studies, potentially requiring more resources than most neighborhood groups have at their disposal. It creates a potentially unresponsive process for the very residents most impacted by these types of development. She urged the City to continue their consideration of emergency Ordinance 4283 and make it permanent to maintain the City and council's commitment to their community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, expressed support for the emergency ordinance and appreciation for the persistence shown by council and staff to respond to the neighborhood concerns when large developments in the Highway 99 planned area raise issues. She reminded council that a significant issue remains; the planning board recommendation and the council decision in 2018 to eliminate transition zones that existed around the boundaries of the Highway 99 planned areas. She did not want to wait until the 2024 comprehensive plan update and the possible zoning changes that will come with that work effort. She emailed council last week with possible comprehensive plan language to add to Ordinance 4283; if that amendment does not occur, she will meet with the planning board to propose a code amendment that requires CG buildings on the boundary of an RS zone to use site and building design to transition to the less intensive residential area. A technical definition of transition is in other cities' codes but is missing from Edmonds' code. That language is a tool the ADB needs. She asked the council's support for adding the transition requirement to the CG code regardless of whether Ordinance 4283 is amended or a code revision vetted and forwarded to council by the planning board. Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a resident on 236th Street SW, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She thanked the council for funding the SEIS for the Highway 99 planning area and for moving up the timeline for installing badly needed sidewalks on 84t1i Avenue West. She also thanked the council for listening to and coming to their neighborhood to see and discuss the impacts of this development firsthand. She applauded the idea of involving the ADB in review of projects that intersect with single family zoned properties. She requested step backs be included in the code revisions as defending the need for them on a case -by -case basis will be difficult for residents with limited resources. She hoped the council would vote to make the ordinance permanent. Stanley Piha, one of owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84th & 236th, commented since October 4, the city council has stopped an application from a builder to develop a market rate multifamily building totally in compliance with all City codes and provisions of the Highway 99 subarea plan on this vacant M N 14 N T- ri N ti T r N N O N T c 0 M O le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 178 9.1.b parcel. Blocking the project was first accomplished by enacting the emergency ordinance related to step backs and now continues with the implementation of an emergency ordinance requiring ADB approval when none is required under the Highway 99 subarea plan. Also since October 4, there has been a public outcry from Washington state officials describing the housing and homelessness crisis in the state due to a lack of affordable housing. Governor Inslee has gone so far as saying a lack of affordable housing drives the state's homelessness crisis. State Senator Markus Liias expressed to the Snohomish County Alliance that one obstacle is the permitting process for new projects and supports streamlining the process to encourage new development. Once property is zoned, projects also need to be built, something that is not seen in Edmonds; there is a vision, but there need to be units on the ground. While state officials including the governor describe the housing crisis as the main cause of homelessness and promote ways to encourage housing so desperately needed, Edmonds' governance and actions to date are exactly the opposite. Mr. Piha continued, the council's actions discourage building housing and as a result ignore the plight of the homeless population. The council's actions create an insurmountable barrier to building in the Highway 99 corridor and adding housing to the City's stock as mandated by the GMA which turns a blind eye to the crisis at hand. Following an extensive public process in 2017, the Highway 99 subareas plan was adopted to incentivize building in the corridor by removing uncertainty in the permitting process. Passing the emergency ordinance on tonight's agenda does exactly the opposite and penalizes those considering building in the corridor. Additionally, a vote to pass the emergency ordinance is simply a vote of no confidence in the planning director and planning department. The planning director has expressed to council on numerous occasions the protections in place in the administrative review process to guide projects in the corridor to their best outcome. Professional planners working with professional designers and builders to provide housing complimentary to the corridor are the experts, yet by passing this emergency ordinance, the council's actions undermine that authority. The wordsmithing in the ordinance and ignoring constructability consequences is a prime example of creating so much confusion and uncertainty that building in the corridor will come to an immediate halt. Like the prior emergency ordinance, this ordinance should be vacated. Dean Williams, Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, speaking on behalf of the applicants for the Terrace Place building, explained the purpose of the Highway 99 subarea plan and planned action EIS was to provide developers with certainty and predictability while streamlining the environmental review and permitting process, furthering the goals of SEPA and the GMA, a direct quote from the subarea plan. Recent actions by the City have eliminated the certainty and predictability that made this subarea plan an attractive development opportunity for investors like his client. A project like this requires an immense amount of due diligence, planning, and prep work to even submit a preapplication. Under the current regulations, his client could not even submit a vest -able building permit until they go through the design review process. Most recently the City upended that predictable, streamlined process they worked so hard to implement in 2016-2017 so instead of predictability, the process has been changed in the middle of their submittal and there is no clear guidance on how to shift gears from one process to the next. Instead of an administrative review for something as fundamental and encompassing as designing their building, his client is being told there will be a two phase public hearing, first a preliminary concept design, a hearing where findings of fact are established and then the applicant redesigns their project and submits another set of plans to comply with priorities design guideline checklist criteria. Mr. Williams continued, the ADB then decides upon conditions that will be imposed, establishing a guess and check review for what should be a relatively simple process for constructing a building that the City invited and exhaustively planned for. This is a 5-over-1 apartment building, not an Escala-type high rise in the center of downtown. This is a working class building in a working class corridor. The ordinance is inconsistent with the GMA and the City's comprehensive plan. The subarea outlines much of the work that went into it, including consolidating the CG zone to allow for a cost effective 6-story mixed use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. Page 58 notes the construction type of five wood M N 14 N V_ ri N ti T r N N O r N T c 0 M 00 le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 179 9.1.b frame floors over a ground floor concrete podium, also known as a 5-over-1 building, is efficient and cost effective. This statement is only true because for issues like step backs, the City established regulations that required step backs adjacent to single family and no step backs across the street. The reasoning for this came from the EIS, there have been no new facts to warrant throwing out that EIS which is required under SEPA when adding to existing environmental documents. The subarea plan the City came up with is well thought out and provides the efficiency and predictability that was missing before. He urged the City to stick with it and avoid reversion to the prior litigious system. Jeremy Mitchell, Edmonds, said he generally supports the design review process as it helps cities guide architectural, aesthetic and transitions from neighborhood to neighborhood which is very beneficial. He referred to the upper story step backs adjacent and across the street, finding the language in the packet to be too vague looking at it from an applicant's point of view, "these requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to design review or the ADB." In his mind when going into a phase 1 design review whether an applicant is meeting with the ADB or City staff, they want to know upfront what is and is not prescriptive because at the phase 1 hearing with the public is where departures are presented. If not clearly aligned, it is hard for the applicant to put the departures in the submittal. If the intent of the language is to put the onus on the applicant to justify its use, he recommended taking out "unless deemed not to be necessary" and just making it a strict requirement and let the applicant do the rest via departures. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented in support of the emergency interim ordinance to require ADB review and building step backs for certain projects in the CG zone. Although relatively new to the neighborhood, three years, she moved into an area that until recently has had very little turnover. Her house, like many in the areas, was built in the 50s and they are only the third owner. People have stayed in this neighborhood, raised families and developed communities. Her neighbors talk about how the areas is changing, sirens are common if not nightly and property theft and vandalism are growing concerns. People who spent their lives there now feel unsafe and lock their doors. The area is also changing due to displacement. In the past three years, half the houses on her street have turned over at least once, amazing for an areas where the tenure used to be 30 years. The issues of lack of resources and displacement of population especially lower, fixed income and elderly population are a reality in the corridor every day. Ms. Seitz said was telling the council this because when talking about the emergency ordinance and what it does, it is often framed as anti -housing. She is not anti -housing; she is anti -displacement and anti - gentrification, but that is exactly what the CG zone is doing. Residents know the buildings in their community will not be the same and they are completely supportive of low income housing; the fact is the City's actions are displacing residents in the community and she feared it would only get worse. The emergency ordinance gives the community a voice and allows greater participation in community redevelopment, a recognized anti -displacement strategy. In addition to supporting the emergency ordinance, she thanked the council for funding the SEPA in the most recent budget, advancing sidewalks on 84', and fmding creative solutions to help meet the community's needs. She supports including more architects on the ADB and making additional code amendments to allow ADB to utilize a full range of design guidelines applicable to the SR-99 corridor and the SEPA required step backs. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Council President Tibbott thanked the public for their comments and for showing up when it is very important for the council to hear from the public. With regard to design review by the ADB, he asked how the ADB would be improved by adding an architect to the board. Mr. Clugston answered having more architectural experience on the board would be helpful. Currently the position is very general, anyone with a related background. Changing it to an architect provides more architectural context. Planning & Development Manager Susan McLaughlin answered design professionals go to school for that, they learn the design vocabulary, materiality, dimensions and depth, how to design a building in context and scale, M N 14 N V_ ri N ti T r N N O N T c 0 M CO N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 180 9.1.b and are able to speak architects in the same language. Often lay people may not see things the same way or be able to articulate how to improve a building in the same language as an architect. Council President Tibbott asked if that could be added that to the ordinance through the hearing process with planning board. Ms. McLaughlin answered that change was approved on the consent agenda tonight. She relayed staff still supports administrative review, but the question was how to strengthen the ADB's composition, and that was staff s recommendation. Council President Tibbott asked if the ADB's review was always quasi-judicial. Mr. Clugston answered it is always quasi-judicial. If a building is in one of the design districts in the BD and CG zones, it is a two - phased hearing. General Commercial design review is a one -phase hearing, but it is all quasi-judicial. Council President Tibbott asked the type of hearing. Mr. Clugston answered it was Type IIIA. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the comments at the public hearing. She suggested next time this comes to council, it would be helpful to have a flowchart of the applicant process with this change. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Resolution 1367 regarding quasi-judicial, pointing out the council is still involved in quasi-judicial processes. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday answered the resolution Councilmember Buckshnis referenced was an aspirational statement by the council to direct staff and the planning board to develop code changes that would reduce or eliminate the council's role in quasi-judicial processes. One outcome of that resolution was adoption of Ordinance 4154 which was adopted in 2019 and referenced in the council packet. Resolution 1367 can be looked at as the beginning of the process and Ordinance 4154 as a potential end of the process. With the adoption of Ordinance 4154, it was unclear whether the council was done tinkering with the quasi-judicial process or if there would be future reductions in the council's involvement in quasi-judicial processes. Whatever the council thought in 2019, decision makers may have a different opinion in 2023. Resolution 1367 did not do anything other than set a goal. As historical background, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the quasi-judicial process has been back and forth for many years; it used to be called Title 20. In 2009 the council voted to remove itself from quasi- judicial, and when she was appointed to council, the council moved back into quasi-judicial in 2010. In 2019, via a process led by Councilmember Tibbott and the late Councilmember K. Johnson, a modified approach was adopted where certain parts would go through the council and certain parts would go to supreme court. She preferred to have citizen's voices heard at local level. Although this issue was not part of the public hearing, but she wanted people to understand what was stated was not entirely true, that everything is quasi-judicial and council is totally out of the picture. She recommended this be addressed sometime in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEIS and EIS, relaying her understanding that those have nothing to do with the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered they are related in the sense they are addressing the same neighborhood and the same zoning district so they are not completely unrelated, but it is a separate process. The SEIS is a much longer term project and will allow for a much broader review of the council's long term vision for the neighborhood. This interim ordinance is not directly related to the SEIS process. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that the SEIS process came through as a report for filing and the council pulled it and asked to have a supplement done right away which of course has not happened but it is in the budget. The council did not agree with the report for filing stating that the CG and subarea were environmentally fine. She wanted people to realize that the timing of events have muddied the water. She thanked staff for their hard work and the citizens for their comments and continued concern and encouraged them to continue to comment to council. M N 14 N V- ri N ti T r N N O r N T c 0 M 00 le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 7 Packet Pg. 181 9.1.b Councilmember Teitzel said his perspective about the ADB is it is a board that is best equipped to monitor development activities to ensure they are in concert with the charm, character and livability of Edmonds and in his opinion, that is their charter. The description of the ADB on the City's website includes, Establishes goals, objectives, and policies for design districts, which was in line of his view of the ADB. He asked if the emergency ordinance complied with the current code relative to development in the CG zone; in other words, does the ADB have the latitude under the existing code to do what council is suggesting they do in this draft ordinance or are they precluded from quasi-judicial rulings like this. Mr. Taraday answered the ADB is certainly not precluded from conducting quasi-judicial review; the ADB is largely a quasi-judicial body. In that respect, the ordinance is not giving them anything new. In the absence of the interim ordinance, design review in the CG zone would not be a quasi-judicial process, it would be an administrative (staff reviewed) process. That is one of the most significant changes in the interim ordinance, who does design review. Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation of his understanding that the draft ordinance does not mandate that step backs are required, there is flexibility in the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered there is certainly a presumption that they are required, but it is not an absolute mandate. Councilmember Nand thanked the stakeholders who took the time to share their views with council. She recognized this is a very hot button issue and emotions are running high. Everyone's input is very important to council and City staff is taking feedback and trying to find ways to meet the stated objectives and desires of various stakeholders. She encouraged everyone who participated tonight to come to the next planning board meeting on January 25 because this process will take many months. The council is looking at a draft ordinance and a full public and political process will follow. She urged stakeholders to continue providing feedback to the planning board, council and City staff. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PROPOSAL Speaking on behalf of the assessment subcommittee, Councilmember Teitzel explained the subcommittee will present the 2023 city attorney assessment work plan and key target dates associated with the plan. At the end of the presentation on the workplan, he would like to have council vote to approve the work plan. The subcommittee will also present regarding the performance evaluation survey tool to evaluate Lighthouse's performance. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Nand and Paine for their work during the past two weeks to reach this point, recognizing there is a lot more work ahead for the subcommittee and council to reach an end goal and make decisions. He reviewed a list of tasks and key dates for collection information to support the Council decision process (Attachment A): • January 3, 2023 o Council approved the formation of the City Attorney Assessment Subcommittee (Councilmembers Teitzel, Paine and Nand) • January 17, 2023 o Present draft for discussion and approval of 2023 city attorney assessment work plan o Present draft for discussion and approval of city attorney internal client satisfaction survey o Consider costs/benefits of external audit of communications involving Lighthouse, the administration and Councilmembers leading up to the 2022 budget discussions, and request Council vote regarding proceeding. • February 1, 2023 o Issue city attorney satisfaction survey to internal city attorney clients, requesting responses by February 16 M N 14 N V- ri N ti T r N N O 7 N T c 0 M CO le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 182 9.1.b 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.60 ENTITLED DISASTER PREPARATION, EMERGENCY COORDINATION, AND CIVIL EMERGENCIES Councilmember Olson advised one amendment made during the council meetings was not reflected in the ordinance. That amendment was provided to council via email and at the dais. She pulled this item so the ordinance could be amended. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE 6.60 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DECISION ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND STEP BACK Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this item is back to council following a public hearing held last week. The city attorney prepared both a resolution in support of retaining the findings of the interim ordinance, and a repealer of the emergency ordinance. The emergency Ordinance 4283 was not included in the packet, but it is the same ordinance that was in last week's packet and was provided to council this afternoon by the city clerk. He noted with the step back language as proposed in Ordinance 4283 would apply not only to step backs across street from a residential zone but also to adjacent properties. Both are something the ADB could decide not to apply. He did not believe that was the intent pf the language. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin commented there have been emails and public comment about Resolution 1367 which was provided in tonight's and last week's packet. The reason staff included it was to offer transparency about a historic document that showed intent to reduce the ADB's quasi-judicial decision making so she felt it was relevant to address it as part of this ordinance. She recommended creating a resolution stating where the council stands now to justify the emergency ordinance. There has been an ordinance since the resolution stating intent, but it did not stay the course, it was a step in the process by the council in accordance with Resolution 1367. Councilmember Teitzel relayed Ordinance 4154 was adopted by council after Resolution 1367 was adopted in 2016. There was quite a bit of process in 2018 and 2019 including public hearings, planning board consideration, and city council public hearings and consideration, before Ordinance 4154 was adopted. In looking at the narrative, Ordinance 4154 conveys that council intended to have the ordinance and the associated ECDC read as council chose it to read at that time. Although Resolution 1367 was valid at the time, additional process occurred to further show council intent. The council's intent was that council and boards and commissions in some cases be removed from quasi-judicial decisions, but not in all cases. In fact, it was council's intent that the ADB be involved in Type III design review decisions. Mr. Clugston said he looked through the planning board and city council minutes for Ordinance 4154 and at no point was the ADB's review process discussed in any significant way. It was all about getting council out of quasi-judicial decisions like closed record appeals. The reason the design review was moved from Type IIIB to Type IIIA was to get it out of council appeal and become a judicial appeal. The only things left on council appeal are conditional use permits and variances by the hearing examiner. The intent of that ordinance was to reduce the council's exposure to quasi-judicial decisions, but none of the discussion addressed the ADB's review process. The intent as expressed in the resolution is that the ADB get out of quasi-judicial. If the council's thinking has changed, it would be good to have a new resolution expressing that because the current resolution states the council wants to get the ADB out of that decision -making process for the reasons outlined in Resolution 1367. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this reminded her of the time old resolution were found that made no sense such as one regarding council procedures and the council finally moved to using Roberts Rules. She asked if the council should repeal Resolution 1367 and just work with Ordinance 4154. In her M N 14 N ri N ti T N N O 7 N c 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 183 9.1.b opinion, and she lived through that era, she did not want to remove the council from quasi-judicial, but she knew the ADB was part of this process because their expertise is needed. She asked what the city attorney suggested since the administration is suggesting the council do something. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended the council discuss that separate from the current issue. The decision today is whether to leave the interim ordinance in place. The council should revisit Resolution 1367 if for no other reason that everyone is clear what the council wants staff to work on. For example, if the council does not want staff to bring an ordinance in the future that takes the ADB out of quasi-judicial land use decision making, that would be good direction to provide to staff. He reiterated that is not a discussion for now, it is a discussion for the future. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out it was brought up by the administration and she recalled there was different intent as Councilmember Teitzel explained. With regard to the adoption of findings, Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Ordinances 4078 and 4079 were not included in the findings of fact, noting Ordinance 4079 also deals with the subarea from the SEPA standpoint, environmental issues, which is the main crux of a lot of things the council wants to look at. She asked who wrote the findings of fact and why all the ordinances were not referenced. Mr. Taraday described his thought process when drafting findings, he was not seeking to include in a resolution a comprehensive history of every single council action that led up to this moment. If the council wants that in the future, he is happy to do it but historically and in this resolution, that was not how he scoped his work. In drafting a resolution with findings of fac, his intent is to articulate the reasons why this particular interim ordinance is necessary for the next six months. It is a fairly focused drafting of the findings, not a broad scope. If the council feels it is too narrowly focused and wants a more comprehensive history, the council should provide that direction and he will draft it accordingly. The findings of fact are not written in stone and the council can amend them before they are adopted. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ordinance 4078 is about the subarea plan and CG zones and Ordinance 4079 "is right next to it." She would have put weight on Ordinance 4079 and thought if Ordinance 4078 is included, Ordinance 4079 should also be included as it was a companion ordinance to go along with the CG. Mr. Taraday said the findings of fact could have referenced Ordinance 4077 too as all three were adopted back to back. Ordinance 4078 is the development regulations, Ordinance 4079 is the planned action, and Ordinance 4077 is the subarea plan; when he was preparing the findings of fact that relate to amending the development regulations, the development regulations were in Ordinance 4078. To him, the most relevant of the three ordinances was 4078 because it contained the development regulations that are being amended with the interim ordinance. He reiterated the findings of fact are not set in stone and the council should free to amend them to make them their findings of fact. He was only trying to give the council a head start by presenting proposed findings of fact for the council's consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will probably amend the findings after other councilmembers speak. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4283 AND THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF FACT, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. Councilmember Teitzel commented the council has discussed step backs at great length. He emphasized step backs are not mandated; the design would come to the ADB for design review and the ADB is the best equipped of any board to review these. The ADB will consider the design and consider whether it is appropriate for the neighborhood, especially neighborhoods adjacent to single family residential zones as this one is. M N 14 N T- M N ti T r N N O N T c 0 M O le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 184 9.1.b Mr. Taraday clarified the motion as stated was to adopt an ordinance that has already been adopted; he believed Councilmember Teitzel may have intended to adopt the findings of fact that support that ordinance, not the ordinance itself. Councilmember Teitzel restated the motion: TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT ORDINANCE 4283. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification, the findings of fact support Ordinance 4283 which goes into effect in six months from the adoption date. Mr. Taraday explained the council adopted Ordinance 4283 previously and it is already in effect. The only question before the council tonight is whether to leave Ordinance 4283 in effect for a long enough period of time that the planning board can review it and provide a recommendation on a permanent ordinance. The other alternative is to repeal Ordinance 4283. The findings of fact he proposed for council consideration are justification to leave Ordinance 4283 in effect. Councilmember Chen observed Ordinance 4283 only applies to development adjacent to single family zoning and not to other commercial zones within the CG zone. Mr. Taraday referred to language that Mr. Clugston brought to the council's attention that may have been inadvertently expanded the scope of the ADB review beyond what the council originally intended. Generally speaking, the scope of Ordinance 4283 only applies to the CG zone, it does not apply to zones outside of the CG zone. Councilmember Chen asked if it would only impact development adjacent to single family zoning, not the entire CG zone. Mr. Clugston explained the proposed language only applies to the CG zones, however, the way the step back language is worded in the interim ordinance, it addresses the across street step back as well as the adjacent step back. He opined the intent was to add the across the street step back and make that subject to ADB design review. The way the language reads, it also makes the adjacent step back subject to ADB review. He asked for clarification whether that was council's intent. Councilmember Chen observed the ordinance would grant that quasi-judicial power to the ADB to make that recommendation. Mr. Clugston agreed, it would task the ADB with reviewing additional projects and to make a call about step backs each time one of those projects is reviewed, not only across the street from single family residential zones but also adjacent to single family residential zones. Councilmember Nand spoke in favor of the motion, specifically the adoption of findings of fact due to Section 1.e.5 which highlights the creation of equity in public process between the BD zones and the Highway 99 subarea. Establishing equity in public process is very important for various areas of the City. She supports maintaining the interim ordinance and sending it to the planning board to continue the political process. That would be an appropriate expression of the public will as processed over the last few months. Councilmember Paine asked when the SEIS will be completed. Ms. McLaughlin answered the new planning manager started a couple weeks ago and their work plan is being reviewed including the SEIS in relation to the comprehensive plan scoping and understanding where they are linked. She did not have an exact answer. Councilmember Paine commented the findings of fact reflect the circuitous route that has been taken. The land use regulations definitely circumvent past decisions and best practices as was pointed out last week by the attorney representing the developer of the project. The City does not allow for consistent, predictable regulations. The last two multifamily projects came forward in a very circuitous way and both required emergency ordinances. The need for emergency ordinances as the go -to means the system has failed in many ways and does not honor the practice that is in place. She recalled being in the audience when the council decided to make a change to the quasi-judicial process. She also recalled discussion M N 14 N V_ ri N ti T r N N O r N T c 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 185 9.1.b about how council would participate in quasi-judicial matters but did not recall if there was discussion related to the planning board and/or ADB. Going back and forth over the past 8-9 months is not serving the broader community and she questioned how continuing to adopt emergency ordinances for every multifamily project guaranteed the community that the plans the council adopts are being honored in a meaningful way. Councilmember Paine pointed out projects can be delayed by 6-8 months which may result in a project moving to a different community. The City needs to welcome multifamily projects. There is a housing shortage, an issue the legislature and many communities are talking about. The City needs to find a path to allow multifamily housing in Edmonds in all shapes and forms. There is stagnation in the market because there is no place for people to move to, something that the council and the community needs to address. She applauded the planning & development department for ensuring there is broad public outreach and engagement to offer the most successful path. She was supportive to a certain extent of the SEIS process because it will add better information, but if it will not be done before 2024, it will stall creative, thoughtful projects by the development community in Edmonds. She suggested the council, planning board and ADB talk about that. She expressed support for the findings of fact, but it is time to consider how the council is impacting the laws, regulations and not addressing a critical issue in the state. Councilmember Teitzel read the amended language in Item D in Attachment A to Ordinance 4283, regarding building step backs: D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessarypursuant to a design review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. With regard to the point of the ADB looking at a design review for a large building, to the extent that building is directly adjacent to single family homes, it would be extraordinarily unlikely the ADB would determine that step backs were not required. Therefore, this is a difference without a distinction and the language as proposed is fine. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the planning & development department, there are two projects with over 500 units being constructed on Highway 99 and plenty of units being constructed on Edmonds Way, none of which required a moratorium. Per the last report, there are 1000 units coming on line in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ordinance 4079 contains development thresholds which are land use, non-residential and residential. She asked for Mr. Taraday's opinion, commenting she believed Ordinance 4079 should be included in the findings of fact because it deals with transportation, traffic mitigation, etc., a lot of things other than just setbacks. She understood Mr. Taraday did not want to include the entire history and include Ordinance 4077, but Ordinance 4079 adds the nuance of the fact that there is an environmental impact of all development which is what the ordinance addressed. Mr. Taraday said he was not sure what Councilmember Buckshnis wanted him to opine on. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to language in the findings of fact that five years ago the council adopted 4078 which updated the CG site development standards in accordance with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. She pointed out the council also adopted Ordinance 4079 five years ago which established a planned action for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan which deals with the SEPA aspect. She wanted to M N 14 N ri N ti T r N N O r N T 0 M 00 N le Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 186 9.1.b ensure the SEPA aspect was addressed since a new SEIS will be conducted. She noted how Mr. Taraday compartmentalizes things is different than how she compartmentalizes things. Mr. Taraday said he has no objection if the council wants to amend the findings of fact to reference Ordinances 4077 and 4079. He did not think it was necessary but if the council wanted a more comprehensive history in the findings, it would be easy to amend the resolution to do that. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ordinance 4077 just establishes the Highway 99 subarea so she agreed that did not need to be included in the findings of fact. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD ORDINANCE 4079 INTO THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT BY ADDING, "SINCE THE 2017 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4078 AND 4079, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CG SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIGHWAY 99 AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT." Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to include that in the findings of fact as SEPA impacts the development aspect of things. Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment as it was not part of the discussion during this process. Ordinance 4079 deals with a different aspect and Ordinance 4078 deals with the CG zone. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not support the amendment because Ordinance 4077 and 4079 are E: both addressed in the first whereas clause of the findings of fact and the conclusion takes care of that N issue. N UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING N YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE, AND NAND AND COUNCIL ti PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. r Councilmember Olson was excited to hear that work has started on planning for the SEIS. She expressed N N support for the motion to add ADB review, an exciting and positive development for properties in the CG 0 r zone that border single family. She originally voted against the step back language, and with the new r information, she would vote no again. She hoped the planning board would look closely at vetting that c element. M 00 N le MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD QUALIFICATIONS Council President Tibbott said this will be a presentation regarding the powers and duties of the planning board, reflections based on input from former planning board chairs, how the council got to this point, and how the recommendations came to council. At the end of his presentation he is seeking input from council regarding their reflections on the discussion, presentation and any additional qualifications that should be considered. The packet includes factors informing planning board selection, which was taken directly from the ordinance, ECC 10.40.020 which he is using as a summary. He reviewed: • Planning Board Membership should represent: o Diverse Occupations o Diverse Experiences o Various Geographical areas Planning Board appointment and attendance requirements: o Serve a four year term o Regularly attend two meetings per month on the 2nd and 4"' Wednesday o Attend as needed to consult with the Mayor and City Council several times/year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 187 9.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting January 26, 2023 Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr (on Zoom) Maurine Jeude (on Zoom) Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom) Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom) Board Members Absent Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused) Corbitt Loch (Excused) APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Other Councilmember Dave Teitzel Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration up there on 84th which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large structures and single-family homes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes ' Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting January 26, 2023 Pagel of 5 Packet Pg. 188 9.1.c The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet. NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance 4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes — one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance 4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input. Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB. Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods. Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks. He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than saying just "across the street' he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered. Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the developer know what they are thinking. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code, Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting January26, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 189 9.1.c but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with these developments. Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale. At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher. Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes. Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space, underground power lines, and other infrastructure. Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99 corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against single family homes. Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect. It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred. Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a I0-foot setback. He agreed that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for multifamily projects. Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting January 26, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 190 9.1.c acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate. The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial issues with the BD zone downtown. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units. Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street, and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred. Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue. Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much weight as they give those in the downtown area. Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more discretion. Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings. Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door to the same type of zoning. Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting January26, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 191 9.1.c as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged they would have to justify their decisions. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS-1 zone would no longer exist, and the single- family homes along 84th could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re - look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Review ADB Handbook Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it would be very helpful. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board. Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the Board for their good work. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting January26, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 192 9.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5ffi Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director Other: Councilmember Dave Teitzel The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on 84t' and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single - Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Pagel of 9 Packet Pg. 193 9.1.c family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan. Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low- income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind them. Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 194 9.1.c to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals. Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236th and 84th West which has been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit - oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need of transit -oriented development attributes. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone. Written Comments: Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting: • Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum • Theresa Hollis — 2 emails • Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 195 9.1.c NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the proposed step back be based on architectural justifications. She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so great that it would mitigate the massing. She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice, removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless the ADB does not determine them necessary. Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied that they are; it is project specific. Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283: • Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007. • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. • Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 196 9.1.c Considerations on the design review process: • Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year. o Projects maybe controversial. • Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities? o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities? • If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply ... during subsequent design review". o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing. o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones. Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed. How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation, modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like. Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects? Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused. Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements. Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real. She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 197 9.1.c ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community. She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017. Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor. She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the street. Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the development community while still considering community concerns. Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She thinks it should be a two-step process. Issue 1: Design Review Process • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone • Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 198 9.1.c Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public hearing Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across the street from RS zone Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference. He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one- sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision. Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity. Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already regulated at their discretion. Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance. Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 199 9.1.c in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2). Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision. Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot building heights. Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options. Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing) • Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required • Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision. There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings. Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information, and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1. Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community members' comments about concerns around step backs. Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is. Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2. Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner, or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 200 9.1.c There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more information. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS None ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 201 9.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting March 8, 2023 Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Devt. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Teressa Hollis, Edmonds resident, urged the Board to get the most complete information available to make a decision on the interim ordinance. She cautioned against listening to the developers' perspective when they say that step backs call the economic viability of a project into question. She discussed other projects this developer has done and noted that it's not possible to make any accurate predictions about the future of a specific project in light of this ordinance. She referred to a question from the Board about the why the City Council created the interim ordinance and referred to Resolution 1512 which was created to answer that question and explain why the debate from 2017 is being reopened. She asked if the Board had considered the implications of Edmonds adopting a one-off approach when staff suggested that right-of-way width is a criterion for defining step back. She couldn't find this criterion in the codes of any other city in the region when she checked. She stated that mandating step backs with a sensitive boundary is a judgement call. She noted that in 2022 staff presented background information to the City Council and concluded that step backs across the street were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supported by policies in the Planned Action report. She played a recording of Director McLaughlin from a previous meeting related to this topic. She recommended code language that describes the step back dimensions on those CG parcels that have a boundary with single family but no other criteria. She recommended adding verbiage to the itemized list about design review in the code which invites Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 202 9.1.c the applicant to submit departures that provide equal or better moderation of the bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the code. Natalie Seitz said she had sent some information to the ADB previously about this topic. She asked that they give this area the same due consideration that they gave to the folks who live near the BD2. She expressed concern about the heights and stated that the development being permitted for residential apartments is already two stories more than was envisioned for this Planned Action. She hopes for fair and equal treatment for all Edmonds residents. Deborah Arthur said she agreed with Natalie Seitz that height is the issue. She hopes they can figure out a way to build these places without creating a tunnel view for residents and a vacuum of heat with no breeze or sky. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Ordinance Related to the CG Zone Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of this topic related to step back requirements for projects 35 feet and above in the CG-zoned properties with single-family residential (RS) zoned properties across the street. The ADB is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Board on potential permanent language. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption of that permanent ordinance. At the February 23 ADB meeting there was consensus and a motion approved that recommended that these types of projects be required to go through a Type II quasi-judicial review process meaning there would be a two-phase public hearing before the ADB when projects are adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned properties. As part of that same motion the Board recommended that the City implement a Type II review process for all other CG projects. This requires public notice and public comment but does not require a public hearing. Projects below 35 feet in height would continue to be reviewed through a Type I review process. There was a consensus from the ADB on the step back requirement. Staff was provided direction to provide better graphics to illustrate the potential impacts of step backs as it relates to massing and scale and potential shadow impacts. He emphasized that tonight they are not focusing on the height of the buildings but only on the impacts of the step back requirements. The interim ordinance, as currently written, requires an initial step back of an additional 10 feet at a 25-foot building height. Once you get to 55 feet you are required to have an additional 10-foot step back. There was discussion from the ADB at previous meetings and general consensus that Board members were comfortable with having that second step back be elevated from 55 feet to 65 feet. This also should be clarified as part of the motion tonight. Director McLaughlin clarified the context and background of the quote by her referred to by Teresa Hollis from a previous Council meeting. She stressed that staff supports the design tools that the ADB has access to and recommends they are used on all projects. Step backs may very well be the answer for projects that are across the street from single family residences, but staff wants the ADB to be able to make that decision with all the tools that are available based on the contextual nature of the site. Clarification questions were asked and answered. Director McLaughlin made a presentation showing illustrations of the impacts of potential step back requirements for CG properties across the street from RS zones with various scenarios. She showed examples Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 203 9.1.c of differences in modulation which is another tool available to the ADB in their toolkit. She reviewed the effects of heights and various step backs on shadows. She reiterated that this is not a conversation about building heights but only the step back. She also pointed out that these images are worst -case scenarios which would only happen for a portion of the day in the spring. From noon on there would not be any shadow impacts from across the street. Board Member Strauss commented that the graphics help to really see the impact. She notices a bigger visual difference with the step backs at 55 feet rather than 65 feet. Board Member Schmitz commented that when the ADB reviews buildings taller than 35 feet things like modulation will be strong tools for them. Board Member Herr said he didn't see a big difference with the shadows. By the time summer comes around those shadows don't even exist. There would be more in the winter, but there's also not much sun in the winter so there is no shadow. He pointed out that the illustration also shows a sunny day with a clear sky which is not very common until summer. He stated it is important to keep in mind where they live. He also stressed that the number of available lots where this shadow impact is going to apply is limited. Chair Bayer pointed out that if a house is sitting west of a 75-foot building they aren't going to see morning sun regardless of step backs. Vice Chair Brooks commented that considering that they live in the Pacific Northwest, they need to optimize what little sun they have in the wintertime. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that the major issue is specifically in the way that the step back requirements are phrased. The ADB already has existing discretion to recommend a whole host of design principles and standards when something comes before them as part of the Phase 1 public hearing. The interim ordinance says that step backs are required unless the ADB says they are not. The options available to the ADB are: • To not carry forward the language related to step backs in the interim ordinance and use the authority they already have with in the two-phase public hearing to require step backs on a case -by -case basis. This would effectively strike the applicability of the section that previously applied only to adjacent properties, but Ordinance 4283 amended it to apply to properties across the street as well. • To keep the language the way it is written now which requires step backs at 25 feet and 55 feet for properties across the street from RS-zoned properties unless the ADB deems they are not warranted in the Phase 1 public hearing. An applicant would have likely have to come forward with two proposals. They could present without step backs and state their case why they don't think they should be required for their project, but they would be taking a risk in doing all that work without any input from the ADB. • To modify criteria such as right-of-way width or other situations where step backs shouldn't be required. Director McLaughlin emphasized that with regard to light, the difference between the step backs is very small. Chair Bayer stated that the issue for her is still the mass. What are significant issues with requiring step backs? Is it financial? Director McLaughlin noted there are a lot of expenses that go into the first design review. The developer's team makes their own design judgements based on their interpretation of the codes and policies that are in place on that particular site. With the current code the design team would be forced to put the step backs in or make two sets of designs which is double the expense. Also, with the design justification the discussion Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 204 9.1.c at the first meeting is going to be solely about step backs and not about all the other tools the ADB has at their disposal to mitigate massing. Staff s preference has always been to mitigate massing and use all the design tools available in the existing development standards. This allows the ADB to use their full discretion to optimize design to make a building effective and fit into a site. She believes that when it is done in a prescriptive way it hyper focuses the conversation and puts the design team on the defense when it may not be the best tool for mitigating massing. Board Member Strauss asked if staff is available to architects/developers to come in with some sketches of the site and proposing ideas. Planning Manager Mike Clugston said there are two types of meetings where that could happen — a pre -application meeting which is a paid meeting and a Development Review Committee which is a free meeting. Anybody who is going to build a building like this is going to come and talk to staff beforehand. Board Member Strauss noted that the developers have plenty of opportunity to come in and discuss with staff what the requirements are. Board Member Loch asked what the City has in terms of policies or guidelines regarding shadow impacts. He also referred to the tree code and noted that many single-family homes could be shadowing themselves with trees. He wondered about the difference between shadows from buildings and shadows from trees. To him they seemed the same. He also asked if a 75-foot building would be allowed on a street that only has 60 feet of right- of-way or would there be a dedication requirement so that ultimately the setback is more like 80 feet. Mr. Clugston said that 60 feet is the right amount to be looking at. The setback is taken from the property line. Whether the whole area is developed doesn't matter. 60 feet is the right of way for most of Edmonds; there are only a few that are different widths. It includes the street and sidewalk. Regarding shadows in the code, he stated he was not aware of any code that had any sort of numerical values that they would measure. There may be some language in the Comp Plan but it would be very general. Director McLaughlin thought that this is something that could be included in the submittal packet. Board Member Jeude noted there is language around light. Director McLaughlin agreed but said it is very subjective. Regarding the question about trees and shadowing, Director McLaughlin was not aware of any language preventing trees from shadowing houses. Board Member Brooks commented that a building is solid, and a tree has branches so you will get some filtering. You can see through a tree, and they blow in the wind so it's a shifting shadow. Board Member Schmitz agreed with addressing the bulk and scale of buildings but expressed concern about focusing solely on property line step back height because they may lose the nuance of the developer and architect being able to address other concerns. There may be better techniques to make those units valuable to people who will ultimately be living in them such as balconies, shadow box windows, and other techniques that will address privacy concerns. In his experience if there are very strict requirements it limits how you can design a building and makes a lot of buildings look very similar. If there's very little flexibility a lot of developers won't approach the City with options, and Edmonds will end up with a lot of similar looking "wedding cake" buildings. By using the toolkit the ADB already has, they would still have the ability to address privacy issues, especially these across the street shadowing issues, with simpler mitigations than broad brush requirements. Board Member Strauss argued that it is really hard for the ADB to tell developers who come in and present their designs that they can't do what they want. If it's not in the code she thinks the developers won't agree to it. Board Member Schmitz replied that the ADB already has the authority to tell developers what the City would like to see. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Strauss noted that step backs are a big suggestion. Also, the ADB does not end up seeing the developer again so they don't even know if they comply. Director McLaughlin noted this would be a quasi-judicial decision; the developer would have to abide by it. Planning Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 205 9.1.c Manager Levitan noted that the first phase of the two-phase public hearing is where the developer would introduce the concept. If they introduce a concept, is within the ADB's purview to say what they want to see before the applicant comes back for the Phase 2 public hearing. This is something that the ADB is already able to do. Director McLaughlin noted that staff ensures the ADB's decision is adhered to all the way to the certificate of occupancy. Board Member Jeude asked about a previous project the ADB had reviewed which the applicant had later parceled off. She wondered if this was a way they had gotten around the ADB's recommendation. Senior Planner Clugston explained that it was not. The buildings will end up looking exactly like the ADB recommended; they are just parceling it in a different way. Board Member Strauss commented on difficulties with that decision because the Board was mixed in their opinions. She thought it would have been easier if it had been clear in the code. Board Member Loch recommended bifurcating the question into the topic of step back above 25 feet and then any other step back issues. Board Member Strauss asked Board Member Schmitz to explain his reasoning for recommending the step back at 65 feet instead of 55 feet. Board Member Schmitz explained how this makes it less complicated and more affordable for developers. This has a big impact for those trying to provide affordable housing. He asserted that from the street the average person would never notice the difference between a 55- foot step back and a 65-foot step back. Board Member Strauss referred to the graphics provided by staff and said there appeared to be a big difference between the 55 and 65-foot step backs. Chair Bayer agreed. Board Member Schmitz thought that the lower -level step back would make the most difference. Board Member Brooks asked if modulation causes similar complications for developers. Board Member Schmitz explained that modulating creates depths in the facade. Vertical modulation provides the most relief in a building because you can break the mass up into what looks like several smaller buildings. Horizontal step backs reduce the bulk of the building by pulling the building back further. Director McLaughlin noted that they don't have prescription around modulation. She thought if there is prescription in the step back, the developers might spend their money there in lieu of modulation or other techniques that could be used to mitigate massing. There was discussion about the ADB's ability to require modulation on projects they review. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, THAT THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS NOT INCLUDE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 25 FEET WHEN ACROSS FROM SINGLE FAMILY (RS) ZONE. Upon request, Board Member Loch clarified his motion. He explained that he hasn't been shown that it makes a material difference in the impacts to the area. He also doesn't think it's good for the City to put an optional regulation that the applicant won't know how to satisfy. This is not fair to the applicant or the neighborhood. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, THAT THE ORDINANCE REMAIN AS WRITTEN IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE 25-FOOT STEP BACK AND THE 55-FOOT STEP BACK. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 206 9.1.c Board Member Schmitz commented that if they push the step backs higher it won't make a difference with shadows, and they have other tools that can be used to address bulk and scale better than step back in an arbitrary way. Board Member Strauss agreed that it would not make a difference with shadows, but from a bulk standpoint it will make a difference. MOTION PASSED 4-3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 207 9.1.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Written Public Comments related to February 8 Meeting Planning Manager Levitan noted that the City had received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and following the February 8 meeting, which are attached to the agenda packet. • Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1 • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map Additional Public Comments: David Cohanim, SytjgW Construction, Inc. stated he was representing developers of the project at 2365 80 Avenue West. They have been working with the City of Edmonds on this project for quite a while. Plans were submitted for design review that met all relevant criteria under the municipal code. Now the project has been stopped by the actions of the City Council. They are unable to move forward, and there has been substantial financial impact due to this. The Emergency Ordinance that was enacted by the City Council calls for substantive changes to the nature of the proposed structure that were not present in the zoning code at the time they submitted for review. This project has been called out repeatedly by city staff as the impetus for these moves. He expressed concern that Judy Gladstone is a neighboring resident of the project under discussion and has spoken out about her position regarding the project and the zoning issues associated with it. Since the Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Council on which Ms. Gladstone serves as Chair, he expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He recommended that Chair Gladstone recuse herself from any matters pertaining in any way to the project under discussion as well as zoning and related legislation associated with the project, particularly with regard to CG zoning. Stanley Piha spoke regarding transit -oriented development which he believes should be as significant a focus of the Planning Board as it is at the current state legislative session. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, an act related to promoting transit -oriented development, a station hub means all parcels that are fully or partially within a quarter -mile radius of a major transit station. Further defined in the senate bill, a major transit stop means a site that has been funded for development or a site on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on high -occupancy vehicle lanes. Mr. Piha stated that governance creating transit -oriented development activities should be a priority of the Planning Board. Community Transit recently announced the proposed shuttle service from the Edmonds Kingston ferry terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station with stops along the way. As a result, the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 238th and Highway 99 will be one of the most transit -concentrated hubs in the city of Edmonds. It is the only intersection that will have both north and south Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the highway. This creates an opportunity to create a transit - oriented development radius as defined by the senate bill allowing the most accessible access to public transportation. He noted that multifamily properties already exist across the street from single-family zoned properties on 80 Avenue between 236th and 238ffi. He spoke in support of a suggestion at a recent Architectural Design Review Board meeting to create a transition between the CG zone and the single-family zone by changing the single-family zones along 80 to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. He stated that the quarter -mile radius from 238th and Highway 99 should be viewed by the Planning Board as a transit -oriented development opportunity. Promoting density here will provide a means of addressing the housing crisis and promoting easy access to all Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 208 9.1.d forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. He thinks all properties within this radius should be excepted from the conditions outlined in the Emergency Ordinance to allow needed housing to be built. Finis Tupper online), Edmonds resident, expressed concern about where Edmonds is headed and the way that the current government is operating. He expressed frustration that he was unable to attend the February 8 meeting because of technical difficulties. He is concerned about open and transparent government and stated there are consequences for violating the Open and Public Meetings Act. Glenn Douglas (online), Gateway community, stated he is getting ready to put together another citizens' petition regarding persistent speeding on 80 Avenue West. He thinks adding a 261-unit apartment building at 236th and 84t' will only exacerbate this. He thanked anyone on the Board who helped get the new stop signs put in at that intersection, but it is not enough. He is frustrated that the southbound radar feedback sign has not been reinstalled, and the northbound radar feedback sign has not been activated. He suggested relocating both radar feedback signs to more effective locations. He commented that asphalt speed bumps have been recommended by neighbors. He would appreciate some feedback or some kind of response. Deborah Arthur said she also tried to get on for the last Planning Board meeting and had technical difficulties. She requested clarification about the area along 84th they are talking about developing. She expressed concern about speeding traffic along the side streets in this area and pedestrian safety issues she has witnessed. NEW BUSINESS B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Chair Gladstone stated that she has been involved as a private citizen on this issue. It is her intent to continue to serve impartially and take in information as she would on any other issue coming before the Planning Board. Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that was presented on February 8. He explained that due to a lack of recording and other technical difficulties, that meeting was being repeated. He reviewed some of the history and provisions of Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283. It requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height; requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB, and is valid for six months from adoption (June 10, 2023) with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. He reviewed considerations regarding the design review process. Right now, they are seeing about one new project per year. He asked for feedback on whether the ADB should have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities. If so, is the two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? He discussed existing and interim step back requirements including factors to be considered regarding across -the -street step backs. He reviewed design tools and requested feedback on additional design tools to be considered. He requested feedback and stated this would go back to the ADB on February 23 for additional code refinement and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to Council. The Council must adopt permanent standards by June 10, 2023. He summarized some of the previous discussion. Board Member Mitchell asked how the Supplemental EIS plays into this. Planning Manager Levitan explained that was added as part of the Council budget package as part of the 2023 project to analyze some of the Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 209 9.1.d development assumptions within the Planned Action EIS related to trip generation and the ability to handle stormwater. He pointed out that the Planned Action EIS went through all the required processes and was subject to public comment and potential appeals which did not happen. Staff is working on ways to integrate this analysis with the needed environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update as a whole. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the projects in the CG zone are not required to go through the ADB, are there any other opportunities for public comment in the permit process to get feedback on the design or the proposed development? Planning Manager Levitan thought there would be an opportunity for a Type 2 public process even though it would be reviewed administratively. Board Member Golembiewski stated that the process of going through the ADB seems counterintuitive to the subarea plan which was designed to streamline development in this area. She thinks public input is important, and she is comfortable as long as the public has the opportunity to provide comment for staff to review. She spoke to the importance of believing that staff will be working in the best interest of the community. Board Member Campbell spoke to challenges with public comment opportunities as has been heard tonight. If they are not going through the ADB process, what else can the City do to make sure people's comments are heard? Planning Manager Levitan stated that a Type 2 process would require public notification be sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project property. If someone comments on that they become a party of record and would be notified of any notice of decision and would have the opportunity to appeal the project if they wished to. Board Member Campbell asked about the possibility of expanding the notification radius to reach out to a greater number of people. Planning Manager Levitan thought it could be discussed. Chair Gladstone asked about the vision of the Planned Action EIS. Planning Manager Levitan replied that a Planned Action was done recognizing the role of high -capacity transit coming down Highway 99 and that the area has the potential to meet a lot of the City's identified housing needs, especially multifamily residential. There was a public process in establishing the subarea plan as well as doing the environmental review through the State Environmental Policy Act. The general intent of the Planned Action was to evaluate transportation and stormwater impacts in that area so it would streamline development. Chair Gladstone requested more information about the history of the CG area and the EIS so they can get a better accounting of this. She also suggested that a joint meeting with the ADB might be helpful to get their perspective before making a recommendation. Chair Gladstone asked about differences in street widths in the CG zone. Planning Manager Levitan thought street widths vary in that area from about 40 to 80 feet; however, this would apply only to CG-zoned properties that are directly across from RS zones so it would be very limited. Board Member Campbell said she would like to see additional information and more detail about the equity piece related to whether step backs would be required. She is concerned about the language in the proposed ordinance that says that step backs would be required unless the ADB determined that they weren't needed. If that condition is left in there, it is important to set out clearly what those requirements are. She can see the benefits to having the flexibility in there but expressed concern about potential inequities between developers. Chair Gladstone asked about the reason for the shift in the emergency ordinance to add review by the ADB regarding step back requirements. Planning Manager Levitan thought the emergency ordinance reanalyzed the ability for the ADB to have discretion about whether step backs are needed and implemented the two-phase design review process. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 210 9.1.d Board Member Mitchell asked if there is still an ability by the developer to prove to the ADB that step backs aren't needed. Mr. Levitan explained that the applicant can state why they don't think they are needed when they present their design. He offered to bring back more information about this. Board Member Mitchell agreed with Board Member Campbell's concerns about consistency. He noted that in his experience step backs are the first thing to go. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the possibility that a developer would propose no step backs on either adjacent properties or across the street the way the code is written. Mr. Levitan explained that in the interim ordinance the discretion for the ADB applies to both adjacent and across the street. The language could be changed if desired. There was some discussion about how the code language development process happens with the Planning Board. ADNIINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Manager Levitan explained that at the last meeting he had reviewed the visioning process and the vision statement: "Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. " The next step in the process will be to do a citywide mailing with a QR code and other opportunities for people to log on to a survey to provide their feedback. He had also asked for general feedback from Planning Board members on the vision statement. The general consensus was that this isn't necessarily a vision statement, but it is just stating what we are. There was a general thought that a vision statement should be more aspirational and forward looking. Board Member Maxwell commented as long as they have the time it would be great to have an additional mail out survey. He stressed that there should be opportunities for people who aren't comfortable with technology, don't have access to smart phones, or have other accessibility issues to be able to respond as well. Board Member Martina agreed that they really need to remember accessibility for the disabled and aging community. She wonders how much feedback they would get from them if they had to go online versus having a survey mailed to them or an opportunity to call a phone number. Planning Manager Levitan thanked them for the feedback. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 211 9.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 12, 2023 Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. She apologized for the delay in starting the meeting while they were waiting for a quorum. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair (online) Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Nick Maxwell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Susanna Law Martini Richard Kuehn Lauren Golembiewski Todd Cloutier Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rose Haas, Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Vice Chair Campbell suggested moving Administrative Reports to the end of the evening just prior to the Extended Agenda due to the late start. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 212 9.1.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Seitz (online) commented that an email she had provided to the Board prior the meeting had been included in the packet; however, the six attachments she had attached to that email were not included. She requested that those be included in the final meeting minutes. Ken Reidy, Edmonds resident, welcomed new Planning Board members. He suggested that when the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council a member of the Planning Board attend the City Council meeting to make that recommendation in person to make sure it is conveyed as intended. He also referred to the absences of four Planning Board members tonight and noted that the decision as to whether or not those absences are excused needs to take place in an open public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB) recommendation on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. The permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Interim Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008) Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the staff presentation. He introduced the public hearing and reviewed the history of interim Ordinance 4283. Provisions of Ordinance 4283 are that it requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height) and that it requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. He reviewed work on this to date. The ADB's unanimous recommendation regarding process is to maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are adjacent/across street from RS zones and create a new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height that are not adjacent/across the street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice). All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I. The ADB recommendation regarding step backs is to maintain step back requirements for projects across the street from RS zones unless deemed not necessary by the ADB. He explained there had been discussion among the ADB about whether they wanted to maintain discretion and operate during the first phase of the two-phase public hearing as opposed to explicitly requiring the step back and then having the option to waive the requirement. Some members also expressed concerns about project costs for developers of having to prepare multiple designs. He reviewed visual representations that staff had prepared regarding various step back and modulation scenarios. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board take oral public comments regarding this item; review and ask questions about it; deliberate; and make a recommendation to Council on permanent code language. Council must hold their own public hearing and adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 213 9.1.d Public Testimony: Randy Hollis (online) encouraged the Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. He noted that the only members of the development community who have commented on this are working on a deal related to one parcel in this 260-acre area. He asserted that if the Council were making a radical departure from the code in nearby cities they would have heard from other developers. He raised concerns about the motivations of these stakeholders and discussed some background on their communications which he stated have consisted of incomplete information and personal attacks. Jan Steadman (online), Edmonds resident, commented that building step backs are a common regulation in land use planning when there are no transition zones, and a tall building needs to transition to a less intensive zone. The authors of the Highway 99 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required these step backs. These step backs were an important mitigation to the upzoning to 75 feet; however, when adopted in 2017 the City Council did not require step backs across the street because of the slow development environment. She stated that the development activity today is significantly higher. When this was reviewed in 2022 staff encouraged them to consider step backs across the street from residential. She noted that these CG property owners on the boundary of Highway 99 have already received a huge windfall from the city's upzoning of the area. She recommended that interim Ordinance 4283 be made permanent. Natalie Seitz (online), Edmonds resident, spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing EIS for the SR 99 Planned Action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding CG zone step backs seek to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She also spoke in support of the two-step process for design review. She pointed out that the SR 99 area brought in four times the annual sales tax of the downtown area and twice that of Westgate in 2022. She also pointed out that the Edmonds population has shifted to the east. The current population of the Highway 99 area exceeds downtown area population. She urged the Board to challenge their perception of how residential development in this area functions within the context of the City. She expressed concern that this area and its residents are not treated with the same consideration that would be given to a similar development downtown. She acknowledged that there is a housing shortage and that this upzone can help to address some of that but it also kills the city's commercial breadbasket and exacerbates the simplification of the housing structures into renters and single family. It eliminates middle housing and does not address the equity issues that are now required by the Growth Management Act. She asserted the impacts are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of the lower density, whiter, and wealthier areas of Edmonds. She asked the Planning Board to recommend step backs or an overlay to require the CG to function within the densities envisioned by the Planned Action. At a minimum, they should keep the City's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed. The interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, spoke in support of Chair Gladstone's right to make public comments to the City Council regarding this item and noted she had acted within her rights and with transparency. She stated she read the codes of many neighboring jurisdictions. Step backs to mitigate the mass and bulk of a building is a very common principle in the field of architecture design. She was not aware of any examples of cities that require step backs when abutting but not across the street. She urged the Planning Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 214 9.1.d Sue Oskowski, Edmonds residents, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She feels it is important to allow the public to participate in the design review of tall buildings in the Highway 99 area especially since the City removed the transition zone in 2017. She raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed 75-foot tall, six -story apartment building at the corner of 236th and 84th which would be built five feet away from the walkway of the neighboring three-story condo. She suggested that the developer could change the building's footprint and courtyard size to allow for a buffer from the condo building on the south boundary. She urged the City to make the interim ordinance permanent because it helps to level the playing field between the interests of the new development and the neighbors who were here first. Seeing no further public comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Clarification Questions: Board Member Maxwell requested a clarification about the difference between the two-step and the one-step process. Senior Planner Clugston reviewed the difference and how each process would work. Vice Chair Campbell asked staff if it was accurate that one of the developers who has provided comments related to the step backs was a person who provided recommendations in the 2017 design standards process. Mr. Clugston thought that it was. Chair Gladstone noted that Bothell has overlays. She asked if this is something that Edmonds has done or is able to do. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City has the ability to establish overlay zones. Senior Planner Clugston noted there are no overlay zones right now, but there are overlay districts in the Comp Plan. Chair Gladstone asked if the Council was made aware about the neighborhood objection to not doing the step backs. Senior Planner Clugston was not certain but thought it was probably discussed at more than one public meeting. Board Deliberation: Board Member Mitchell referred to the vagueness of the code and the discretion of the ADB to make the determination as to whether there are step backs or not. He noted that the skill level of whoever sits on the Board at the time varies. He expressed concern that there would not be consistent measures implemented across the same zone over time. He wondered what metrics they would look at when making that determination. He referred to the people concerned about the step backs and noted that a property can still take both step backs at the same time. He also noted that somebody could buy up a group of parcels, do a lot line adjustment into one parcel and not have to do the step back. Chair Gladstone referred to Board Member Mitchell's comments about the ambiguity of the code and the potential for inconsistency as ADB members change. She commented that if the ordinance just says that step backs need to occur and removes the ADB review it would resolve that issue. Board Member Mitchell agreed. Right now, any applicant could come to the table and easily remove the step backs and justify it in many different ways. From a community standpoint, if they are really concerned about mitigating the bulk with step backs, he thinks that the code language needs to be improved. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 215 9.1.d Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of urban development. Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four- story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing. They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017 ordinance was adopted. Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples of how codes are applied in surrounding areas. Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings over 35 feet. Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member Mitchell. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023 -000 1) Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 216 9.1.e Planning Board Options for CG Emergency Ordinance 4283 Prepared by Working Subgroup: Jeremy Mitchell, Lauren Golembiewski, and Judi Gladstone Goals of Emergency Ordinance In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup identified four goals: 1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones. 2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to RS zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process. 3. Certainty for builders. 4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that would require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a maximum of one public meeting. 4 Options The subgroup identified four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They include the following: 1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB possibly). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting but staff decision. 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55- feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55-feet and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate requirement to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting. Below is a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. Stepbacks of 10' Allow Emergency Require and 30' for Stepbacks as Goals/Option Emergency Ordinance as written with buildings over Ordinance to written. 55'. No ADB be vacated. no ADB review. Review. Provide better transition between CG and X X X RS zones Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 X Subarea Plan Certainty for X builders X X Compliance with X X X HB 1239 Packet Pg. 217 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g Chapter 16.60 CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE Sections: 16.60.000 CG zone. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. I 16.60.000 CG zone. A. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district. B. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: 1. "Amenity space" means outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an amenity or benefit to people. 2. "Auto sales use" means facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use. 3. "Frontage" means the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street. 4. "Primary frontage" (or "primary street frontage") means the frontage for a property that is adjacent to only one street or, for a property that is adjacent to more than one street, the frontage that is adjacent to the street that is considered primary over any other streets to which the property is adjacent. 5. "Step -back" means the upper portion of a building that is required to be set (or stepped) further back than the minimum setback otherwise required by ECDC 16.60.020(A). C. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the general commercial district. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. Packet Pg. 219 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 I 16.60.005 Purposes. The CG zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use of land; B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists; C. Encourage attractive mixed -use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial uses; and D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsections (B) and (D) of this section; 2. Halfway houses; 3. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Indoor storage facilities that either comprise less than 40 percent of a permitted primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory building or buildings comprising less than 40 percent of the total leasable building space used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s). 3. Outdoor storage areas that are integral to a permitted primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or Packet Pg. 220 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 garden/nursery sales; provided, that such outdoor uses are screened from adjacent residential zoning districts. C. Prohibited Uses. 1. Mobile home parks. 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to a permitted use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health -related purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC, 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city limits: Packet Pg. 221 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 a. A public park; b. A public library; c. A nursery school or preschool; d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for religious worship; f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and i. A public hospital or hospital district. 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section to the nearest physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance from Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses; Packet Pg. 222 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Floor Area CG None None 57102 0715" 75'3 None Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. Z The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls Packet Pg. 223 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. M E a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the a building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of c the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately a, adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor a) dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in 2 an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. C. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. Packet Pg. 224 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 of. v a c m @ u •c ++ �n d 41 qr N v o a nN t1N r, P T 4 N -,L Ya mn, f 5--t4r* 16'-2"41 Nofe_ Numenrdl Rdnges for the Pedeslridrtlone dnd the Activity zone dre lypic& but -do nof ronrmfover when requirements of this rhdpter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or Directly Across the Street from IRS Zones. 1. For buildings greater than 55 feet in height. the portion of the building above 25 feet must step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height must step back no less than 30 feet from the reauired setback adiacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. Packet Pg. 225 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g rL--------------------------------------------------------------.. .. .. I z � } OI cc a I - ---------------------------------------------- CG ZONE 55' BUILDING (NO STEPBACKS REQUIRED) I -4 ----------------- 1 ---------------- CG ZONE 75BUILDING (57EP13ACKS REQUIREDI 10' STEPBACK 0 25' 30' STEPBACK @ 55' Packet Pg. 226 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 (Illustrations: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to or across the street from RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. Packet Pg. 227 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or Packet Pg. 228 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. B. Parking, Access, and Bicycle Storage Standards. 1. Parking Requirements. Vehicle parking shall be provided as follows: a. Nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and b. Residential uses, an average of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square feet, an average of 1.25 parking spaces per unit that is between 700 and 1,100 square feet, and otherwise 1.75 spaces per unit. c. In addition, guest parking for residential uses at a minimum ratio of one guest space for every 20 required parking spaces. d. For mixed -use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and commercial uses provided the director finds that the proposal is supported by a parking study and/or nationally recognized parking standards and that the site plan assures access for all shared parking uses. e. Parking meeting the nonresidential parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. 2. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial space in a mixed -use development with a shared parking plan is exempt from off-street parking requirements. 3. The development services director may approve a different ratio for the vehicle parking required by the standards of subsection (B)(1) of this section when an applicant submits parking data illustrating that the standards do not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio shall include, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, and the anticipated peak and average parking loads of all uses. The director may approve a parking ratio that is based on the specific type of development and its primary users in relationship to: a. An analysis conducted using nationally recognized standards or methodology, such as is contained in the Urban Land Institute's most recent version of the publication "Shared Parking" or the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication "Parking Generation"; or b. A site -specific parking study that includes data and analysis for one or more of the following: i. One -quarter -mile proximity to a bus rapid transit station and methodology that takes into account transit -oriented development; Packet Pg. 229 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 ii. Use of transportation demand management policies, including but not limited to free or subsidized transit passes for residents and workers; iii. On -site car -share and bike -share facilities; iv. Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle parking needs as the general population; or v. Other methods that reduce the need for vehicle parking. 4. All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except as otherwise allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between two to four feet in height. Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40 percent or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses. 5. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking standards relating to bicycle parking facilities. 7. Driveways Accessing Highway 99. All driveway connections to Highway 99 must meet the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation, including minimum requirements for distance between driveway access connections, which may be up to 250 feet to help promote traffic safety and minimize pedestrian - vehicle conflicts. 8. Paths within Parking Lots. a. Pedestrian paths in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands. b. Pedestrian paths shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on -site buildings as well as to pedestrian walkways that border the development. c. Pedestrian paths shall be a minimum of six feet in width and shall be separated from the parking area either horizontally or vertically (e.g., with curbs). Where paths cross vehicular lanes, raised traffic tables should be considered if feasible. Packet Pg. 230 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum of every 100 feet. 9. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground Floor. a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the ground floor of the building, the following standards may be applied regardless of any ECDC standards that otherwise conflict: i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. iii. A mixture of full and reduced width parking stalls may be provided without demonstrating the stalls could also be provided at full width dimensions. 10. Drive -Through Facilities. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following: a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. b. No more than one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. 11. Pedestrian and Transit Access. a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing pedestrian routes where applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking or access areas. c. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required. d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other. C. Site Design and Layout. Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the form of either a pedestrian -oriented design area or an alternative walkable design area, as Packet Pg. 231 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 described in subsections (C)(1) and (2) of this section; provided, that an exceptions process, pursuant to subsection (C)(3) of this section, may be allowed under the provisions of this section. Additional site design and layout standards in this section must also be met. 1. Pedestrian -Oriented Design Area. Unless otherwise permitted under subsection (C)(2) or (3) of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a pedestrian -oriented design area. a. Primary Frontage. At least 50 percent of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept. The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3,000 square feet and has met the requirement. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; or iv. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. b. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage. Vehicle parking, other than where permitted for vehicle sales use, shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 0 F�3 CE�d6�''L��.�3-'�'��X�+l+�.]7�p,ry3�� I 2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option. An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section may be allowed by the development services director only for sites that the director has found to have unique and significant constraints related to pedestrian access and for which a phased design plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the Packet Pg. 232 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g development services department. While they currently may be largely auto -oriented, walkable design areas have a high potential for walking, bicycling and transit service. If a development is allowed to use this standard, it shall be subject to the requirements of this subsection. a. Building Placement. For any new building permitted on a property after August 1, 2017, a minimum of 50 percent of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line or within 65 feet where a five-foot landscaping area is provided between the parking lot and the sidewalk. When site constraints preclude strict compliance with this requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. b. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; iv. The location of any alley or parking areas; or v. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. c. No more than one double -sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage. d. A pedestrian entrance must be located on the primary frontage. Sau nq %.de lao ng p i—y street shall 6e PBdeetridn er1r.— to *d Alhi, SD feel of the 1wt moemy ilne 111 11111AMfaAI ^'at ■Irarr I1911amINV no Primary street +mmaee e. Required amenity spaces, under subsection (C)(4) of this section, shall be located to connect the building to the street as much as practicable; provided, that amenity space may also be located between buildings where the space will be used in common. Packet Pg. 233 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Design. An exception to the exact requirements of subsection (C)(1) or (2) of this section may be allowed by the hearing examiner under a Type III -A decision process to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses when the following criteria are met: a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange and has unique pedestrian access constraints or is primarily used for motor vehicle sales; b. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening; c. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage; d. At least 25 percent of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the building to the street in a manner that encourages pedestrian use and include seating, landscaping, and artwork; e. Where a site has multiple buildings (excluding accessory utility buildings), 50 percent or more of the required amenity space shall be located between buildings to allow for shared use; f. No more than 50 percent of vehicle parking, other than that associated with a permitted vehicle sales facility use, may be located within 20 feet of the front property line; g. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space 4. Amenity Space. Amenity space is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities. a. An area equivalent to at least five percent of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity space. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least five percent of the additional parking area. b. The amenity space shall be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, such as, but not limited to, seating, paths, gazebos, dining tables, pedestrian -scale lighting, and artwork. A minimum of 10 percent of the required amenity space shall be comprised of plantings, which may include tree canopy areas and other shade or screening features. Native vegetation is encouraged. Packet Pg. 234 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 c. The majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms: i. Recreation areas: an open space available for recreation. The area may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or recreational use. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not comprise more than 15 percent of the total area. ii. Plazas: an open space available for community gathering and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by either building facades, with strong connections to interior uses, or close proximity to the public sidewalk, especially at the intersection of streets. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape; provided, that trees, shade canopies, and other landscaping, as well as water features and artwork, may add visual or environmental features to the space. iii. Squares or courtyards: an open space available for unstructured recreation or community gathering purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping. Water features and artwork are optional. iv. Exception. A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity space; provided, that it: (A) Is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage; (B) Is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for growing edible produce; and (C) Includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies 5. Lighting. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut off' fixtures. a. Parking lots shall have lighting poles that are a maximum of 25 feet in height. Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have pedestrian -scaled lighting focused on the travel path. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. b. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered lighting may be sufficient. Packet Pg. 235 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 c. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/canopy. D. Building Design Standards. 1. General. To provide variety and interest in appearance, the following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least four of the elements will be used to vary the design of the site: a. Building massing and unit layout; b. Placement of structures and setbacks; c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities; d. Composition and character of open space, plant materials and street trees; e. Variety in architectural elements, facade articulation, and/or building materials; f. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Building Design and Massing. a. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top," which may be achieved through differences in massing elements and/or architectural details. b. The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as facade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and other design details. c. Primary Frontage. On the primary frontage, to provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, 50 percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from this standard may be approved when the facade will not be visible from the public street due to the placement of other buildings on the site; provided, that the requirements of subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section shall apply. Packet Pg. 236 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g b , ■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all wirrr�ows $nd glass door$, but not rnirrgred finishes; i. On the primary frontage, no vehicle parking shall be located within the first 20 feet of the first level of a building facing the street except where such parking is underground. d. All Other Building Frontages. All street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of a dead-end street, shall comply with the standard below. i. Thirty percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height shall be made of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Windows shall not be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40 percent in order to meet this requirement. e. Wall Treatment. Building facades not subject to all requirements of subsection (D)(2)(c) or (d) of this section are intended to not display blank, unattractive walls to the public or to other building tenants. To accomplish this, walls greater than 30 feet in length shall have architectural treatment that incorporates at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: i. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). ii. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. iii. Belt courses of a different texture and color. iv. Projecting cornice. v. Projecting metal or wood canopy. vi. Decorative tilework. vii. Trellis containing planting. Packet Pg. 237 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 viii. Medallions. ix. Artwork or wall graphics. x. Vertical differentiation. A Decorative lighting fixtures. xii. Glazing. xiii. An architectural element not listed above that is approved by the director to meet the intent of this subsection. [Ord. 4277 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4251 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities,- 2. Off street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary activity, any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the Packet Pg. 238 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 required available parking for the other business use below the standards established in this chapter. C. Ongoing Uses. 1. Audio equipment at drive -through facilities shall not be audible off site. 2. Development subject to the standards of this chapter shall continue to meet the standards of this chapter except as specifically permitted otherwise. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Zoning Accessory Contingent Outdoor dining Essential Site specific compliance dwelling unit critical area public rezone letter review facilities Lot line Formal Shoreline Technological Development Zoning text adjustment interpretation substantial impracticality agreements amendment; of the text of development waiver for area -wide the ECDC by the permit, where amateur radio zoning map director public hearing antennas amendments not required per ECDC 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA Critical area Comprehensive determinations determinations variance plan amendments Shoreline Preliminary Contingent Conditional Annexations exemptions short plat critical area use review if public permits hearing (where requested public hearing by hearing examiner is required) Minor Land Shoreline Variances Development amendments to clearing/grading substantial regulations planned development permit, where Packet Pg. 239 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V residential public hearing development is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor Revisions to Shoreline preliminary plat shoreline conditional use amendment management permits Staff design Administrative Shoreline review, including variances variance signs Final short plat Land use Design review permit (where public extension hearing by requests architectural design board is required) Sales Guest house Preliminary office/model formal plat (ECDC 17.70.005) Final formal Innocent Preliminary plats purchaser planned determination residential development Final planned Staff design residential review (ECDC 20.12.010.B.2) development B. Decision Table. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Recommendation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board by: Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City council City council examiner/ADB examiner Notice of No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No application: Open record No Only if (1) If Yes, before Yes, Yes, before Yes, before public hearing or appealed, director hearing before planning board planning board open record open decision examiner or hearing which makes which makes Packet Pg. 240 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III -El TYPE IV TYPE V appeal of a final record is board to examiner recommendation recommendation decision: hearing appealed, render final or board to council to council or before open decision to render council could hearing record final hold its own examiner hearing decision hearing before hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III -A process Closed record No No No No Yes, Yes, before the review: before council the council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12 080 AooeaTT 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. I 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a Packet Pg. 241 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staffs determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.70B.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120-day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staffs decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staffs ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. Packet Pg. 242 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process i M••„a �wr.q A :. iFhry�PO+1i Pftw2 Conc*pu� D4Cdar4 aasgn I I oes�n AQd"Vn I I f f � I— — — — — — — ------------ Amp - [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.010 Applicability. A. Downtown Business (BD) zones. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. B. General Commercial (CG) zone. In the General Commercial zone, the applicable design review process depends on the site and project -specific situation: 1. Design review by the Architectural Design Board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 75 feet in height as identified in ECDC-1 6.60.020. Packet Pg. 243 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 2. If the project site is adjacent to or across the street from the IRS zone and an application contains a building greater than 35 feet in height, staff reviews the project and issues a Type II -A decision. 3. Staff completes all other project design reviews as a Type I decision. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing - Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. Packet Pg. 244 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria - and their relative importance - that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing - Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. Packet Pg. 245 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 9.1.g d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.70B.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code, Packet Pg. 246 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staffs determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre - application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. Packet Pg. 247 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG an�rrazvc) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 248 9.1.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 I 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision - No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 249 9.1.h CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.edmondswa.g CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD April 27, 2023 To: Edmonds City Council From: Edmonds Planning Board Chair Judi Gladstone Subject: Planning Board Recommendation on Permanent Ordinance to Replace Interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) On April 12, 2023, the Planning Board held a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council on a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283, which is set to expire on June 10, 2023. The Planning Board considered recommendations made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) at their February 23 and March 8 meetings. Their recommendation was to make the ordinance permanent as written with the exception of requiring a Type II -A review process for projects in the CG zone not adjacent or across the street from RS zones. In addition, the Planning Board considered public comments and input from staff. To allow for additional board discussion and deliberation, the public hearing was continued to April 26, 2023. In the time between our April 12 and April 26 meetings, I met with Board Members Lauren Golembiewski and Jeremy Mitchell to explore options that could be presented to the whole board on April 26. The subcommittee started by identifying the goals of Interim Ordinance 4283 and developed several options for consideration, which were included as Attachment 11 in the April 26 Planning Board packet as well as in your May 2 meeting packet. The subcommittee concluded that Option 4 would be the most consistent with the goals of the interim ordinance and the most consistent with the subarea plan, as shown in the table in Attachment 11. Jeremy prepared illustrations (also included in your May 2 meeting packet) showing the two main design components of Option 4: 1) eliminating step back requirements for CG-zoned projects with building heights of 55' or less that are adjacent or across the street from RS zones and 2) for projects over 55' in height, requiring a 10' step back at 25' of height and a 30' step back at 55' of height, an increase of 10' over the language in the interim ordinance. Given the clear and objective step back standards included in Option 4 — as well as the upcoming requirements of recently passed HB 1293, which the city will need to comply with - the subcommittee felt that the requirement for ADB review included in Interim Ordinance 4283 should not be carried forward to the permanent ordinance. Instead, Option 4 would require projects adjacent or across the street from RS zones to be subject to the Type II -A permit process outlined in ECDC 20.01.003, which involves an administrative staff decision that requires public notice and allows for public comments. This would replace the Type I process that was in place prior to the adoption of the interim ordinance. The Planning Board recommendation didn't address projects not adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Following discussion and deliberation on April 26, the Planning Board made a unanimous (7-0) recommendation to include the components of Option 4 in its recommendation to City Council for a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283, as shown in your meeting packet. I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and am available to answer any questions. Judi Gladstone Chair, Edmonds Planning Board Packet Pg. 250 9.1.i AUDIENCE COMMENTS Theresa Hollis commented on the opportunity for the City to purchase property from the Hurst family for a future park. She commented that she believes the use of that land for hiking and as a small green belt is redundant with the existing set of trails and green belt abutting the Madrona School property. She does not think it is a good use of city funds. The City needs more funds to purchase parkland for general recreation purposes. She discussed the status of the former Woodway Elementary school and suggested it might be feasible for it to become parkland for south Edmonds. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — Q 1 Accomplishments This item was included in the packet. Chair Gladstone solicited feedback. Board Member Maxwell said it appears that the responsibilities are well -matched to the budget. He referred to the Perrinville Creek restoration project that was brought up recently and asked if there is some way that the Parks Department could share some responsibility for that for the purpose of protecting natural resources. Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could check in with Parks about that. Board Member Golembiewski commented that as a public works contractor they are doing work on a project in Bellingham. It is a public works project but the parks department has some funding they are funneling into that project. They have also organized replanting events and gotten some grant funding in conjunction with this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell responded to Board Member Maxwell's comment about the budget and noted that it is important to recognize that this report from Director Feser is a list of accomplishments, not a holistic report on the status of the department. It is not showing the tremendous amount of backlog that exists in all parks departments or other projects they are not able to get to. They are accomplishing an incredible amount of work. She cautioned against "scope creep". If they are going to request that the Parks Department take on more of the Perrinville Creek project, they also need to be prepared for what is going to be taken away. In her experience as a former parks staff member, the backlog of deferred maintenance always gets larger and not smaller. Also, in terms of species management, historically, staff in parks departments are responsible for invasive species removal like ivy. In terms of projects addressing wildlife that might be living within the natural resources, directives are generally given by state or federal agencies which are implemented at local levels. She doesn't want to expect that Parks can add in a large scope project to their responsibilities. Board Member Golembiewski suggested it would be nice to see some of the major planning items coming up as part of the Parks report in the future. She is interested in seeing the prioritization of projects. Chair Gladstone agreed and suggested that seeing what they are not able to get to would be helpful. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01, and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone to replace Interim Ordinance 4295 (AMD2022-0008). Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 251 9.1.i Senior Planner Clugston introduced this item and summarized the public hearing process to date. Due to some absences on April 12 the Board had decided to continue the hearing to tonight. The public portion comment period was closed at the last meeting. He noted that since the last meeting the Planning Board put together a subcommittee of members who had some several options to present. The subgroup was comprised of Chair Gladstone, Board Member Golembiewski, and Board Member Mitchell. Board Member Mitchell reviewed the subcommittee's work and recommendation. He explained that their goal was to come up with options for what to maintain from Interim Ordinance 4283. He summarized that if the city is not planning to upzone the adjacent RS zones in order to effectively transition from the higher intensity uses that are happening along Highway 99 by virtue of the CG upzone to 75 feet, it needs to explore ways to mitigate the bulk or massing of certain elements. The current emergency ordinance that is in place now leaves a lot of uncertainty for applicants which puts a lot of risk into the project. It also puts uncertainty into the adjacent RS zones not knowing what to expect. The group wanted to remove the uncertainty and ambiguity that could come with the ADB review and keep with the essence of what the planned action was really for - to view the whole planned action area as one component. He stated that the old zoning map had a certain amount of transition area along the perimeter where the CG zone abuts the RS zones. The subcommittee came up with options for the Board in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They included the following: l . Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB possibly). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting but staff decision. 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25 feet and 30' step back at 55 feet for buildings over 55 feet adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55 feet and under are exempt from step back requirements. Step backs would not eliminate requirements to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting. He reviewed a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. There was some discussion about how buildings under 55 feet would still have setbacks but would not be required to have step backs. Graphics of the various options were reviewed. Board Member Golembiewski pointed out that in reviewing the planned action, what was envisioned for these parcels was four-story buildings. Board Member Mitchell commented that the parcels they are talking about next to RS zones are more than likely going to be all residential, with no commercial on the bottom. Board Member Maxwell asked about design requirements for the ground floor. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is a list of design components that developers can pick from, and articulation and modulation is one of them. He pointed out that there would be an additional 10- foot setback from the back of the sidewalk than is noted in these graphics. Chair Gladstone commented that the current ordinance is a little bit taller than what was stated in the vision for the planned action in that it would allow for five stories, not three to four. The step backs are intended to provide some relief for that. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed strong support for Option 4. Her biggest concerns were equity and consistency within the process. Having two different options that would be acceptable is a very good Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 252 9.1.i compromise. It would eliminate the requirement for the ADB review and could streamline the process. It gives the developer flexibility and clarity. Board Member Kuehn concurred. Option 4 is thorough and gives two good options to keep things equal for applicants. He commended the subcommittee for the work they did. Board Member Martini thought this would make things simpler. Board Member Golembiewski noted that the intention of the subarea plan is to spark development in the area and produce more housing choices. The two-step review really delays the process and makes it more difficult to get things actually built. Board Member Mitchell noted that this would remove a lot of the risk, waiting time, and uncertainty for developers. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that if the process were to shift to a Type 2, to remove the ADB review, it would be a staff decision. There would be public notice to properties within 300 feet and an opportunity to appeal the staff decision to the hearing examiner. Chair Gladstone asked if there is a way to expand the 300- foot notification area. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the 300-foot notification is for both Type 3 and Type 2. This is the norm but they could consider options. Board Member Golembiewski commented that the public notice signs for Edmonds are very small compared to surrounding cities. She recommended having larger signs. Other board members concurred. Board Member Martini asked if someone could look up public notices online. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they are all on the city website and postcards are mailed out to neighbors within 300 feet. Chair Gladstone noted that time is an issue with this matter. Since Council will be having their own public hearing, she recommended not reopening public comments for this hearing. There was consensus. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 4 AS PROVIDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE: RECOMMEND REVISING THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE 10' STEP BACK AT 25 FEET AND 30' STEP BACK AT 55 FEET FOR BUILDINGS OVER 55 FEET ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. BUILDINGS 55 FEET AND UNDER ARE EXEMPT FROM STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS. STEP BACKS WOULD NOT ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS TO USE OTHER MASSING TECHNIQUES IN CODE. ELIMINATE ADB REVIEW BUT REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE AND/OR MEETING. Board Member Maxwell commented that this recommendation is in the spirit of what citizen comments have been. Planning Manager Levitan stated that an introduction on this item is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at next Tuesday's meeting (May 2). If the Council is comfortable a public hearing would be scheduled for Tuesday, May 16 with potential adoption on Tuesday, May 23. Board Member Martini asked about the recommendation to provide bigger signs. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they could potentially look at it as part of the code modernization effort. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 253 9.1.i MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase D to achieve the goal of reducing development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would just be a secondary use. Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12 months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist. Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals if it is evident in a photograph. Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time. Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 254 9.1.j of EDP 0 v � <j C Permanent code amendment for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) City Council — May 2, 2023 r- 0 �L R a) 2 3 N L a c 0 U M N O N N 0 E Q a Packet Pg. 255 9.1.j Process at Council 0 �L R a) 2 • May 2 — Introduction. Review ADB and PB work and PB recommended language, ask questions • May 16 — Public Hearing. Take public testimony, begin deliberation, request any further code revisions M N • May 23 — Decision. Conclude deliberation, vote on final ordinance 0 • Council must adopt any permanent regulations by June interim Ordinance 4283 expires 101 2023 when Q E t a Packet Pg. 256 1c.189 9.1.j History of Interim Ordinance 4283 'S • In August 2017, the city adopted a subarea plan for Highway 99 (Ordinance 4077), amended standards/regulations in the General Commercial (CG) zone (Ord. 4078), and established a Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea (Ord. 4079) L • Concerns were raised in 2022 that Ord. 4078 did not properly reflect subarea plan language related to building step backs M N • Interim emergency Ord. 4278 was adopted on October 4, 2022 but later repealed N N following additional Council research/discussion 0 • Interim emergency Ord. 4283 incorporated language from Ord. 4278 and added a design review process by the ADB in the CG zone, and was adopted on December 10, 2022 • Ord. 4283 was retained by Council on January 24, 2023, after a public hearing on January 1712023 • Sent to ADB and PB for work on permanent standards by June 10, 2023 EI) Packet Pg. 257 c.189 9.1.j Ordinance 4283 Provisions 0 �L R a) • Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height (ECDC Chapter 20.12) L a • Buildings less than 35 feet still subject to staff design review process that had o been in effect since 2007 M N O N • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from q g p an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB (ECDC Chapter 16.60) Q E t a Packet Pg. 258 1c.189 9.1.j Board Work on Permanent Standards • Architectural Design Board • Work Session —January 26, 2023 • Recommendation, Part 1 (Process) —February 23 • Recommendation, Part 2 (Step -back) —March 8 special meeting • Planning Board • Work Sessions — February 8 and February 15 special meeting is Public Hearing — April 12, continued to April 26 • Public comments received were forwarded to Boards or provided in meeting packets O t: E D Packet Pg. 259 1c.189 9.1.j ADB Recommendation — Part 1 (Process) 0 a L R 0 2 • Maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are adjacent/across street from RS zones (ADB decision after two-phase public hearing) a • Create new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height M that are not adjacent/across street from RS zones (staff decision after N N public notice) 0 • All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I E • Unanimous vote at February 23 meeting E t a Packet Pg. 260 c.189 9.1.j ADB Recommendation — Part 2 (Step back) 0 a L R 2 • Maintain step back requirement for projects across the street from RS zones (10' step back from required setback above 25' in height and IV 20' step back from setback above 55'), unless deemed not necessary IL by the ADB 0 U M • 4-3 vote at March 8 meeting, with minority wanting to maintain the N ADB's existing discretion to require step backs during Phase I public hearing process, as opposed to explicitly requiring them and then having the option to waive the requirement N 0 E Q • Minority express concerns about additional project costs for creating multiple designs t a Packet Pg. 261 1c.189 9.1.j PB Recommendation o L Cu a) 2 • Packet page 167 0 • HB1293 limits: standards must be clear and objective L • Buildings 55 feet or less are exempt from step back requirement 0 • Buildings > 55' require 10-foot step back at 25' and 30-foot step back at 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zone • Unanimous vote at April 26 meeting I 0 E Q • PB focused on step backs; design review process needs to be resolved t a Packet Pg. 262 1c.189 111111111 1- Aruhd&vtLrralLkmwau H"d Recomffond9bon (Far &zk&xM AcTma Hm Sheet From RS-Zones} INN is IN Tenft:=Te WeTMA E5 40 , li All m lim ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------- - --------------- . . . . . . . . . . . ------------- mrcr Packet Pg. 263 PYinmra SvwdF?&yvmffwhnU6bn (For 8w7*Aw Across Me 6twf From 52-7qnn 55 FowarLmw in htvaNJ I m i l I n moll n oil! Dwommd Lwrmmil I' mil=. i a MIN �: so IN girl we 161, noel ■i ail' PIL� i ii 11� 1■ n •gym n n oar n -A-Uri INN■ 7 15 16, JIF 11 11 � RE 9 Z 0 9.1.j rL________________________________________________- __ --- _ ._..._ _.__._____________-- __ .._ +____________________________________________________--____ PUBLI Ida ZONE 55'BUILDING ALU REALM (NO STEPRACKS REWIRED) SIDE � PB - no . O Ste p Back (<55') Packet Pg. 266 9.1.j Design Review Process Options 1. HB1293 limits: one meeting 2. Keep interim process (two-phase ADB hearing if building is > 35') 3. Revert to all staff design review, no notice (since 2007) 4. ADB recommendation a. Keep two-phase ADB interim process (> 35' adjacent/across street from RS zones) b. Create new Type II process for projects > 35' not adjacent/across street from RS zones (staff decision with notice) c. All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type 5. Projects > 75' in High Rise nodes — ADB review or staff? _ 0 �L R a) 2 0 a` c 0 U M N O N N cu 0 Q a Packet Pg. 267 9.1.j Questions? • May 2 —Introduction. Review ADB and PB work and PB recommended language, ask questions • May 16 —Public Hearing. Take public testimony, begin deliberation, request any further code revisions • May 23 —Decision. Conclude deliberation, vote on final ordinance • Council must adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires 0 �L R a) 2 0 a` c 0 U M N O N N R O C E a a Packet Pg. 268 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:15 AM To: Planning Subject: Planning Board Attachments: Stanley Piha Planning Board 2 8 23_JPG.PDF Dear Michelle Martin, Please find comments for the planning board in advance of the February 8, 2023 planning board meeting. Would you please confirm receipt? Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 21014th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanlevPstanlevre.com www.stanleyre.com 1 Packet Pg. 269 9.1.k Memorandum To: City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Stanley Piha Date: January 7, 2023 Re: Emergency Ordinance 4283 Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone Dear City of Edmonds Planning Board, Please accept this memorandum in opposition of implementing Ordinance No. 4283 which is being discussed at the January 8, 2023 Edmonds Planning Board meeting. 1. 1 am one of the owners of vacant land commonly known as 23625 84th Avenue West, Edmonds. 2. This parcel of land was contracted to be sold under a purchase and sale agreement to a builder who submitted an application for the project identified as the Edmonds Terrace to construct a multi -family building in accordance with the CG Zone of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. No deviations or variances to the code were requested. 3. In July 2022 the Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Board pending projects at the City of Edmonds. 4. The Planning Board meeting minutes of July 27, 2022 indicate one planning board member expressing "concern" about the height and scope of Edmonds Terrace project. 5. FALSE NARRATVIE - From the date of the July 27, 2022 planning board meeting to the October 4, 2022 City Council meeting, wherein Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted, misinformation was communicated by the public to the Edmonds Planning Department regarding the lapse to discuss step backs for properties in the Highway 99 Subarea that are across the street from RS zoned properties. This resulted in Planning Manager Kernan Lien presenting a false narrative to the City Council regarding this lapse. 6. VACATED ORDINANCE AND FAILED PROCEDURE - At the November 22, 2022 City Council Meeting, Planning Director Susan McLaughlin corrected the record to reflect that indeed the subject of step backs across the street from single family zoned property was presented to the City Council at public meetings in 2017 by Planning Director Hope Shane on more than one occasion and that questions and comments by Councilmembers at the time were asked and answered. Of note is that Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and Nelson at the time voted with all other councilmembers to unanimously adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as presented. The City Council vacated Emergency Ordinance 4278 on November 22, 2022. However, City Attorney "Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim ordinance. The council packet does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Staff was following council direction to draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council wanted to vote on this motion, staff will interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken on something that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on the consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance". Packet Pg. 270 9.1.k 7. BACK PEDDELING - During the two week period from November 22, 2022 to December 6, 2022, it appears Councilmembers were contacted by parties opposed to vacating Emergency Ordinance 4278. At the December 6, 2022 City Council Meeting, what was to be a rubber stamp approval to vacate, Council pulled the Ordinance from the agenda to once again discuss the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance to a future date. Council moved the follow up meeting to Saturday December 10, 2022. 8. SUBSTITUTE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -On December 10, 2022, Council with input from residents (see page 31 of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022) where Council President Olson reads language "provided by a resident", Council adopts Ordinance No. 4283 an Emergency Ordinance of the City of Edmonds Washington, Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone" 9. ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF UNCERTAINTY - The Interim Development regulations now require a two-step process to seek approval of a proposed project when the Highway 99 subarea plan adopted in 2017 required only administrative approval. This adds uncertainty to any party thinking of building on property in the Highway 99 subarea that is either adjacent to or across the street from single family zoned property. The Planning Board should recognize that what once was a streamlined approach to incentivize adding housing units to the Highway 99 subarea is now a penalty. It is highly unlikely that any builder will spend time and financial resources without a shred of reliability to plan a project in the Highway 99 subarea. 10. WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING CRISIS - The State of Washington and Snohomish County are experiencing a housing and homelessness crisis. Governor Jay Inslee has gone so far as to say "a lack of affordable housing drives our State's homelessness crisis". State Senator Marko Liis has gone further when expressing at the Snohomish County Alliance meeting held recently that "One obstacle, is the permitting process for new projects. He thinks it must be streamlined to encourage new development. "Once you've zoned it, you have to make sure that it also gets built. And that's what I think that we're not seeing yet in Edmonds; there is a vision, but we need the units now, on the ground." 11. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - Challenge Seattle and Boston Consulting Group issued its report in January 2023: Addressing Housing Affordability in Washington. Four takeaways from the report are: a. Housing affordability is at a crises level in Washington State. It disproportionately impacts people of color, burdens low and middle -income households, and directly contributes to homelessness, which is also at a crises level. b. The fundamental problem is we lack housing supply. This have been the case for decades, and with a growing population the problem only will worsen. c. Housing supply- at the right size, in the right place, and at the right price is the solution to address today's affordability crises and meet tomorrow's housing needs. Action should begin with zoning reform as the foundation to build upon. From there, a comprehensive portfolio of short -and long-term policy solutions is required to fully address the crises. d. We need to act now. By taking a comprehensive approach and working together, we can and must address the pain of unaffordability today and plan for the growth of tomorrow. We have no other choice — the prosperity and well-being of our state depends on it. 12. CURIOUS EVENTS - What could have possibly prompted the City of Edmonds City Council in 2022 to capitulate its governance to uphold the regulations established in 2017 by a unanimous vote when creating the Highway 99 subarea? Packet Pg. 271 9.1.k 13. BROOKINGS INSTITUTE - According to Jenny Schuetz, Ph.D, Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institute, the housing crises is a direct relation to State and local levels of government imposing a lot of rules on the construction process making it difficult to construct housing. Supply is inelastic and giving people voices in the community make it difficult if not impossible to create housing. In a podcast interview conducted by Ezra Klein of The New York Times, she was asked: EZRA KLEIN: I want to talk about — I've been trying to think about what part of the conversation to bring this in on. And I'm going to do it here and weave in and out of it. I think the argument you're making here is a pretty profound argument about small-D democratic politics posing as an argument about housing. And what I mean by that is this — it is almost cliche to say the government that is closest to the people governs best. It is cliche to say government should be responsive to the people who live there, to the constituents. It is cliche to say that the way a strong Democratic culture should work is that the people most affected by a decision should have the most power over it. And what you're saying is that that is failing at a very deep level, and it is failing worse in the parts where it is most deployed. So you have — in this respect, you have more small-d democratic cultures where the constituents have more power and access to their representatives in these richer neighborhoods. They have time. They have the knowledge base to navigate the system. They have connections. They can actually be heard. And what you're saying there is you're getting the worst outcomes. So how do you think about that? How do you think about the tension between some of what you're saying has happened here and what you might think of as classical theory of — and what you might think of as classical democratic theory? JENNY SCHUETZ: So it's either two ways to think about this. One is that what looks on the face of it like small-d democratic process,that people get to engage in their local government and make their voice heard, is not actually that democratic. It's not representative. And we know this, in part, from the work of political scientists who have looked at the characteristics of people who show up to a neighborhood meeting. So think of a neighborhood where there's a specific proposal on the table to build some new apartments. You have a neighborhood meeting and people show up and they say, yes, I like this, or, no, I don't. The people who show up to that neighborhood meeting for five or six hours on a Tuesday night tend to be older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall. So we know from observing this that this is not, in fact, representative and small-d democratic. There are some people who live in the community who have more free time, especially older retirees, who have more comfort with the political process and are highly invested because they own homes in the neighborhood. They will push back against this. Whereas a lot of people who are directly affected by that in the neighborhood, they have jobs, they have kids. They can't come to the meeting or they feel uncomfortable doing it. So it looks like small-d democracy isn't, and we have kidded ourselves into thinking it is. The other way to think about this is making decisions at a hyperlocal level, at the neighborhood level, or even at the city and town level doesn't take into account the spillover effects of where we build and Packet Pg. 272 9.1.k don't build housing. The people who live in the neighborhood are going to be affected by construction and potentially by displacement or changes to their property values. But the whole city is also going to be affected by whether housing gets built and where it gets built. The whole region is affected by whether or not there's housing for people at different income levels. So if a region doesn't build enough housing to accommodate people who are baristas, and firefighters, and child care workers, the region's economy doesn't work well. And then we have climate spillovers as well. So if the only people who were affected were the people who lived in that neighborhood, it would make more sense that they could have veto power. But there are a ton of people who are impacted by our development patterns who don't get a voice at all because they don't live there and don't get to show up and voice their opinions. 14. NON Democratic RESULTS - Unfortunately, this is what is now happening in Edmonds. A well thought out Highway 99 subarea plan established in only 2017 providing incentive to build housing has now been hijacked by an "older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall" 15. STEPBACKS ARE NOT THE ISSUE - In reality, it is not about the step backs. Both Planning Director Hope and Planning Director McLaughlin have presented evidence that the separation between the single family zoned properties across the street from the CG zoned property is more than sufficient to limit impacts on the single family properties. Director McLaughlin provided a section showing the separation when she recommended that the emergency ordinance be vacated. Here you have two professional planners heading your City Planning Department coming to the same conclusion. 16. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - The location of the proposed Edmonds Terrace must be considered a transit oriented development. The land upon which the project would have been built extends from 236th Street SW to 2381h Street SW. This would place any future resident within a five minute walk to the SWIFT Blue Line which has both north and south bound stations at Highway 99 and S. 238th street. Additionally, as part of the Community Transit 2024 plan, a shuttle from The Kingston Edmonds ferry terminal will be established to connect passengers to the new Mountlake Terrace light rail station. And, one of the shuttle stops will be at the BRT station at S 238th and Highway 99. This will allow any future resident of an Edmonds Terrace project to have immediate access to both bus rapid transit and light rail. 17. ADB PROFESSIONALS - The most recent meeting of the Edmonds Architectural Design Board proved that the current emergency ordinance is problematic. Both a professional architect and builder confirmed the issues resulting from the emergency ordinance with constructability are insurmountable. This is a result of code being inserted by laypeople having no planning, design or building background. 18. CREATING A TRANSITION - The issue of creating a transition between CG zoned property and single family properties across the street has been expressed as a reason to limit what could be built at the Edmonds Terrace site. Once again the professional architect on the Edmonds Architectural Design Board had the foresight to solve this issue. It should be noted that multi -family properties already exist on 84th Avenue W between 236th Street SW and 238th Street SW. Given the proximity to the two BRT stations at S 238th and Highway 99 and now the future access to light rail, the presently zoned single family zoned properties are also defined as being transit oriented development sites. Changing the RS zoned properties on the west side of 841h Avenue West from single family to an RM 2.4 or RM 1.5 creates the desired transition and creates an opportunity for more housing in this immediate area. 19. The BD ZONE AND CG ZONES ARE NOT THE SAME — When the Highway 99 subarea plan was adopted, it was intended to promote development in the corridor. Allowing the processing of Packet Pg. 273 9.1.k applications by an Administrative Review process was the carrot to encourage builders to come and build in the Edmonds Highway 99 corridor. Downtown Edmonds and the BD2 zone does not have the available land to develop. It does not have a major State highway nor a major public transportation system to move people without the use of their personal vehicle. It does not have a major hospital or medical facilities. And it will not have immediate access to light rail as does the corridor. Establishing the restrictions and uncertainties described in the emergency ordinance creates a disincentive to build in the corridor. 20. ENCOURAGE HOUSING - The Planning Board must make a recommendation to the City Council on how the City of Edmonds will address the housing crises. Will Edmonds be a light among the cities and create opportunities for housing and make an effort to end homelessness, or will the City of Edmonds succumb to the privileged older, wealthier, whiter, small number of homeowners who live in the neighborhood who resist? 21. RECOMMEND VACATING THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Given the seriousness of the housing and homelessness crises, the answer should be clear, vacate the emergency ordinance, allow the Highway 99 sub area plan to stand as is with Administrative Review and encourage the building of housing in the one area of the City that has the available land to do so. Respectfully Submitted. Packet Pg. 274 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis Attachments: Hwy 99 Subarea Plan - 2017 - excerpts.pdf Hello, Attached is a 3 page handout that is part of my public comments at tonight's meeting. I am providing them via email for the convenience of board members who are participating in the meeting via zoom. I also have paper copies to hand to those attending in the Bracket room. regards, Theresa Hollis Packet Pg. 275 9.1.k ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS TABLE 6: EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVITY UNITS Existing 352.55 9669 27.4 Conditions Alternative 1 352.55 13,226 27.5 (No Action) 5,872 16.65 3,797 10.77 1,579 4.47 7,112 20.17 6,114 17.34 2,803 7.95 Alternative 2 (Preferred 352.55 15,999 45.4 9,189 26.1 6,810 19.3 4,904 13.9 Alternative) FIGURE 16: ALTERNATIVE 1(NO ACTION) • - x2olr. st sw 212rn st sw E y, al A7 �i.:. 220tn s sw �E L I j- I�, j 228kr. S, SW Lry rJI •. 2aorn st sw Aliernalive 1: Development Types r_ z3z�as.i �J + � , 4�1 Mixed use Office 23 d,h • l 411 Mixed the Residential Stt 5 �r 111 Q 3 Wry,apuj r t 23gth St sw 240th St sw 1 I zdz-,c sr sw fA I, FIGURE 17: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MIXED USE) - i -ME27orn sr sv� r7 . W% -A M 71 220th 6 t sw 22dth sr sw adw"ikmstsw RA- y 2soth 6t sw AA " 232nd St sw • • 23dm st sw I 99 3� I Q 2)6m St sw ww�'' 23a,h 3r SW I INAU i:=:� 240rn sr SW Arm- 4 - ,-0�rw St sw a 291[n Sr sw IL � J �• Preferred Al to rnative: Development TypeB 9r1 Mi.ed vaa roar 47 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 276 IMPLEMENTATION 9.1.k CONSOLIDATE CG AND CG-2 INTO A SINGLE CG ZONE THE ISSUE TODAY: The zoning in the planning area is unnecessarily complex and confusing. Most of the area is either zoned CG or CG2. The difference between them is a minor height difference of 15 feet. CG has a height allowance of 60 feet while CG2 has a height allowance of 75 feet. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 into a single CG zone with height limit at 75 feet. This allows for a cost-effective 6 story mixed -use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. The construction type of 5 wood framed floors over a ground floor, concrete podium (also known as a "5- over-1 building") is efficient and cost effective, and is also within the height capacity of fire truck ladders. SIMPLIFY ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND ALIGN ZONING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE ISSUE TODAY: Many of the current zones in the HWY 99 study area are remnants from the zones that were in place when this area of Edmonds was annexed from the County. The patchwork of zones is outdated and, in some cases, not consistent with parcel boundaries, meaning that some lots have more than one zone. RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Instead of having 6 or more zones, it is recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone be applied to most of the study area. Additional recommendations below, as well as a change to other multifamily properties in the subarea when zoning map amendments are being considered, will ensure new buildings transition in scale into the surrounding single family neighborhoods. These changes will better align the zoning with the Comprehensive Plan map. 55 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 277 IMPLEME 9.1.k w- r � i 224[h 51 51W1 . . vr- F 99 ' z2atn st s 230th St Sw� 232 nd 51 SYVf 236th SS $ i7 '; j _ -- Sw ' Z-02nd St 51M� � - -'-- 8a1 CURRENT ZONING CG2 - General Commercial 2 CG - General Commercial BN - Neighborhood Business ■ BC - Community Business RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft. RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft. RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft. ■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft. ■ MU - Medical Use P - Public Use a L WMhSt 24 d lh 5c $W RECOMMENDED ZONING CG - General Commercial ■ BN - Neighborhood Business ■ BC - Community Business RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft. RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft. RM-2.4- Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft. ■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft. ■ MU - Medical Use I P - Public Use EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 278 9.1.k Memorandum To: City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board From: Stanley Piha Date: February 17, 2023 Re: Emergency Ordinance 4283 Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone Dear City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board, Please accept this memorandum in opposition of implementing Ordinance No. 4283 which is being discussed at the February 23, 2023 Edmonds Architectural Design Board meeting. 1. 1 am one of the owners of vacant land commonly known as 23625 84th Avenue West, Edmonds. 2. This parcel of land was contracted to be sold under a purchase and sale agreement to a builder who submitted an application for the project identified as the Edmonds Terrace to construct a multi -family building in accordance with the CG Zone of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. No deviations or variances to the code were requested. 3. In August 2022 the Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Board pending projects at the City of Edmonds. 4. The Planning Board meeting minutes of July 27, 2022 indicate one planning board member expressing "concern" about the height and scope of Edmonds Terrace project. 5. FALSE NARRATVIE - From the date of the July 27, 2022 planning board meeting to the October 4, 2022 City Council meeting, wherein Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted, misinformation was communicated by the public to the Edmonds Planning Department regarding the lapse to discuss step backs for properties in the Highway 99 Subarea that are across the street from RS zoned properties. This resulted in Planning Manager Kernan Lien presenting a false narrative to the City Council regarding this lapse. 6. VACATED ORDINANCE AND FAILED PROCEDURE - At the November 22, 2022 City Council Meeting, Planning Director Susan McLaughlin corrected the record to reflect that indeed the subject of step backs across the street from single family zoned property was presented to the City Council at public meetings in 2017 by Planning Director Shane Hope on more than one occasion and that questions and comments by Councilmembers at the time were asked and answered. Of note is that Councilmember Teitzel, Buckshinis and Nelson at the time voted with all other councilmember to unanimously adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as presented. The City Council vacated Emergency Ordinance 4278 on November 22, 2022. However, City Attorney "Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim ordinance. The council packet does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Staff was following council direction to draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council wanted to vote on this motion, staff will interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken on something that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on the consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance". Packet Pg. 279 9.1.k 7. BACK PEDDELING - During the two week period from November 22, 2022 to December 6, 2022, it appears Councilmembers were contacted by parties opposed to vacating Emergency Ordinance 4278. At the December 6, 2022 City Council Meeting, what was to be a rubber stamp approval to vacate, Council pulled the Ordinance from the agenda to once again discuss the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance to a future date. Council moved the follow up meeting to Saturday December 10, 2022. 8. SUBSTITUTE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -On December 10, 2022, Council with input from residents (see page 31 of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022) where Council President Olson reads language "provided by a resident", Council adopts Ordinance No. 4283 an Emergency Ordinance of the City of Edmonds Washington, Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone" 9. ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF UNCERTAINTY - The Interim Development regulations now require a two-step process to seek approval of a proposed project when the Highway 99 subarea plan adopted in 2017 required only administrative approval. This adds uncertainty to any party thinking of building on property in the Highway 99 subarea that is either adjacent to or across the street from single family zoned property. The Architectural Design Board should recognize that what once was a streamlined approach to incentivize adding housing units to the Highway 99 subarea is now a penalty. It is highly unlikely that any builder will spend time and financial resources without a shred of reliability to plan a project in the Highway 99 subarea. 10. EQUITY— Of note is that two larger multi -family projects in the Highway 99 Sub Area Plan have already been approved with building permits issued without objection. One being the Hazel Apartments at 23400 Highway 99 and the other being the Apollo Apartments at 23601-23607 Highway 99. By issuing building permits for these two projects, it is glaringly apparent that by enacting the Emergency Ordinances the Edmonds City Council and the City of Edmonds will discriminate against any apartment development that is not directly on Highway 99. Creating barriers to development in accordance with the CG Sub Area Plan on parcels that are near existing neighborhoods denies apartment dwellers an environment apparently only afforded to homeowners. This is a veiled form of redlining that should be reversed. 11. HOUSING CRISIS - The State of Washington and Snohomish County are experiencing a housing and homelessness crisis. Governor Jay Inslee has gone so far as to say "a lack of affordable housing drives our State's homelessness crisis". State Senator Marko Liis and gone further when expressing at the Snohomish County Alliance meeting held recently that "One obstacle, is the permitting process for new projects. He thinks it must be streamlined to encourage new development. "Once you've zoned it, you have to make sure that it also gets built. And that's what I think that we're not seeing yet in Edmonds; there is a vision, but we need the units now, on the ground." 12. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - Challenge Seattle and Boston Consulting Group issued its report in January 2023: Addressing Housing Affordability in Washington. Four takeaways from the report are: Housing affordability is at a crises level in Washington State. It disproportionately impacts people of color, burdens low and middle -income households, and directly contributes to homelessness, which is also at a crises level. The fundamental problem is we lack housing supply. This have been the case for decades, and with a growing population the problem only will worsen. Housing supply- at the right size, in the right place, and at the right price is the solution to address today's affordability crises and meet tomorrow's housing needs. Action should begin with zoning reform as the foundation to build upon. From Packet Pg. 280 9.1.k there, a comprehensive portfolio of short -and long-term policy solutions is required to fully address the crises. d. We need to act now. By taking a comprehensive approach and working together, we can and must address the pain of unaffordability today and plan for the growth of tomorrow. We have no other choice — the prosperity and well-being of our state depends on it. 13. CURIOUS EVENTS - What could have possibly prompted the City of Edmonds City Council in 2022 to capitulate its governance to uphold the regulations established in 2017 by a unanimous vote when creating the Highway 99 subarea? 14. BROOKINGS INSTITUTE - According to Jenny Schuetz, Ph.D, Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institute, the housing crises is a direct relation to State and local levels of government imposing a lot of rules on the construction process making it difficult to construct housing. Supply is inelastic and giving people voices in the community make it difficult if not impossible to create housing. In a podcast interview conducted by Ezra Klein of the New York Times, she was asked: EZRA KLEIN: I want to talk about — I've been trying to think about what part of the conversation to bring this in on. And I'm going to do it here and weave in and out of it. I think the argument you're making here is a pretty profound argument about small-D democratic politics posing as an argument about housing. And what I mean by that is this — it is almost cliche to say the government that is closest to the people governs best. It is cliche to say government should be responsive to the people who live there, to the constituents. It is cliche to say that the way a strong Democratic culture should work is that the people most affected by a decision should have the most power over it. And what you're saying is that that is failing at a very deep level, and it is failing worse in the parts where it is most deployed. So you have — in this respect, you have more small-d democratic cultures where the constituents have more power and access to their representatives in these richer neighborhoods. They have time. They have the knowledge base to navigate the system. They have connections. They can actually be heard. And what you're saying there is you're getting the worst outcomes. So how do you think about that? How do you think about the tension between some of what you're saying has happened here and what you might think of as classical theory of — and what you might think of as classical democratic theory? JENNY SCHUETZ: So it's either two ways to think about this. One is that what looks on the face of it like small-d democratic process,that people get to engage in their local government and make their voice heard, is not actually that democratic. It's not representative. And we know this, in part, from the work of political scientists who have looked at the characteristics of people who show up to a neighborhood meeting. So think of a neighborhood where there's a specific proposal on the table to build some new apartments. You have a neighborhood meeting and people show up and they say, yes, I like this, or, no, I don't. The people who show up to that neighborhood meeting for five or six hours on a Tuesday night tend to be older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall. So we know from observing this that this is not, in fact, representative and small-d democratic. There are some people who live in the community who have more free time, especially older retirees, who Packet Pg. 281 9.1.k have more comfort with the political process and are highly invested because they own homes in the neighborhood. They will push back against this. Whereas a lot of people who are directly affected by that in the neighborhood, they have jobs, they have kids. They can't come to the meeting or they feel uncomfortable doing it. So it looks like small-d democracy isn't, and we have kidded ourselves into thinking it is. The other way to think about this is making decisions at a hyperlocal level, at the neighborhood level, or even at the city and town level doesn't take into account the spillover effects of where we build and don't build housing. The people who live in the neighborhood are going to be affected by construction and potentially by displacement or changes to their property values. But the whole city is also going to be affected by whether housing gets built and where it gets built. The whole region is affected by whether or not there's housing for people at different income levels. So if a region doesn't build enough housing to accommodate people who are baristas, and firefighters, and child care workers, the region's economy doesn't work well. And then we have climate spillovers as well So if the only people who were affected were the people who lived in that neighborhood, it would make more sense that they could have veto power. But there are a ton of people who are impacted by our development patterns who don't get a voice at all because they don't live there and don't get to show up and voice their opinions. 15. NON Democratic RESULTS - Unfortunately, this is what is now happening in Edmonds. A well thought out Highway 99 subarea plan established in only 2017 providing incentive to build housing has now been hijacked by an "older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall" 16. STEPBACKS ARE NOT THE ISSUE - In reality, it is not about the step backs. Both Planning Director Hope and Planning Director McLaughlin have presented evidence that the separation between the single family zoned properties across the street from the CG zoned property is more than sufficient to limit impacts on the single family properties. Director McLaughlin provided a section showing the separation when she recommended that the emergency ordinance be vacated. Here you have two professional planners heading your City Planning Department coming to the same conclusion. 17. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - The location of the proposed Edmonds Terrace must be considered a transit oriented development. The land upon which the project would have been built extends from S236th Street to S 2381h Street. This would place any future resident within a five minute walk to the SWIFT Blue Line which has both north and south bound stations at Highway 99 and S. 2381h street. Additionally, as part of the Community Transit 2024 plan, a shuttle from The Kingston Edmonds ferry terminal will be established to connect passengers to the new Mountlake Terrace light rail station. And, one of the shuttle stops will be at the BRT station at S 238th and Highway 99. This will allow any future resident of an Edmonds Terrace project to have immediate access to both bus rapid transit and light rail. 18. ADB PROFESSIONALS - The most recent meeting of the Edmonds Architectural Design Board proved that the current emergency ordinance is problematic. Both a professional architect and builder confirmed the issues resulting from the emergency ordinance with constructability are insurmountable. This is a result of code being inserted by laypeople having no planning, design or building background. 19. CREATING A TRANSITION - The issue of creating a transition between CG zoned property and single family properties across the street has been expressed as a reason to limit what could be built at the Edmonds Terrace site. Once again the professional architect on the Edmonds Architectural Design Board had the foresight to solve this issue. It should be noted that multi -family properties already exist on 84th Avenue W between S 2361h and S 238th Streets. Given the proximity to the two Packet Pg. 282 9.1.k BRT stations at S 238t" and Highway 99 and now the future access to light rail, the presently zoned single family zoned properties are also defined as being transit oriented development sites. Changing the zone from single family to an RM 2.4 or RM 1.5 creates the transition and creates an opportunity for more housing in this immediate area. 20. ENCOURAGE HOUSING - The Architectural Design Board must make a recommendation to the City Council on how the City of Edmonds will address the housing crises. Will Edmonds be a light among the cities and create opportunities for housing and make an effort to end homelessness, or will the City of Edmonds succumb to the privileged older, wealthier, whiter, small number of homeowners who live in the neighborhood who resist. 21. RECOMMEND VACATING THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Given the seriousness of the crises, the answer should be clear, vacate the emergency ordinance, allow the Highway 99 sub area plan to stand with Administrative Review and encourage the building of housing in the one area of the City that has the available land to do so. Respectfully Submitted. Packet Pg. 283 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 11:24 AM To: Citizens Arch Design Board; Citizens Planning Board Cc: Clugston, Michael; Council; LaFave, Carolyn Subject: Re: Board review of CG zone step backs Attachments: 20230220_CG Stepback Memo to Boards.pdf; Attachment 1 - 20220919_Hwy99 Upzone comments.pdf Hello, Good Morning. Would you please review and consider the attached memorandum to the Architectural Design and Planning Boards for the upcoming public hearings on February 23rd (ADB) and March 8th (planning board). I would appreciate your support of the stepbacks identified in the existing state environmental policy act, environmental impact statement (EIS) for the SR99 planned action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 - CG Zone Step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR99 community in 2017. Thank you for your time and consideration of this information. Thank you, Natalie Seitz On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:14 AM Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Good morning. I wanted to reach out because I finally had the opportunity to watch the ADB meeting last night. I am incredibly concerned about how the stepback issue was presented to the board and the resulting discussion. I would like to develop a memo that will explain my concerns with: • How growth management act elements are being considered to evaluate bulk and massing, • The SR99 planned action, process and environmental review, and • Equity. I want to thank CM Titsel for bringing up the process equity issue for ongoing reviews. However, I feel substantive issues were left unaddressed in the way the issue was presented to the board and I would like the board to immediately begin to consider the following while I draft the memo: • It is my understanding that the ADB did not review the setbacks when the planned action was adopted, so this is the first policy level review of the upzone step backs and whether it meets the vision of the planned action, and • The current step back code did not undergo environmental review prior to adoption. The environmental review for the planned action included across the street step backs. The upzone of this area without across the street step backs did not undergo environmental review. I wanted to make these two pieces of information immediately clear because I think the review by the ADB should take into account the bulk and mass that was visioned through public process with this community and underwent environmental review as critical pieces of missing context to consider these changes. To continue with or use the current code as a baseline is to continue with code that did not receive these regulatory checks. Packet Pg. 284 9.1.k In light of these concerns, and since board members identified that they are less familiar with this area, I would like to encourage you to review the type of development visioned by the planned action and design specifications that underwent environmental review in the FEIS. I think you will find it enlightening as to the type of smaller scale development that the Community visioned and the City identified it could achieve in the CG zone which is what allowed this area to be rezoned. I have a lot on my plate so please reach out to me immediately if you are unable to use a resident -drafted memo in your deliberations. Would you please also let me know the latest acceptable timeline to include a resident drafted memo in your deliberations? Thank you, Natalie Seitz Packet Pg. 285 9.1.k To: Edmonds Architectural Design Board Edmonds Planning Board Edmonds City Council Edmonds Mayor From: Natalie Seitz Date: 20 February 2023 Re: Interim ordinance 4283 — CG Zone Step backs During the Jan 26, 2023 Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting there was discussion of housing affordability, highest and best use and equity during the deliberation of bulk and scale for the CG zone. I want to provide this memo to provide a fuller context to those discussions. This memo is divided into a limited discussion of the Growth Management Act in relation to the housing element, the Planned Action and environmental review in relation to highest and best use, and Equity. Would you please contact me if you have any questions or concerns with the content presented in this memo? I am writing this memo, in acknowledgement of the housing shortfall nation-wide and regionally. We need more housing in our city and the lack of housing affordability prevents many populations from accumulating wealth. Housing affordability results from both high - and low -end units entering the market and up -zoning creates local impacts acknowledged by the GMA (see below). I am seeking to hold the city of Edmonds accountable to mitigation and the housing visioned for this area that will receive the brunt of the local impacts. I am also asking you to recognize how that this up -zone is functioning within the city's need to meet regional growth standards in protection of single family residential in other neighborhoods. Growth Management Act This section seeks to contextualize the housing affordability within the Growth Management Act (GMA) including discussion of recent proposals at the Washington State Legislature. At a very high level the stated planning goals of the GMA for that the urban growth, housing and public facilities are to encourage development where public facilities exist and promote a variety of housing types [RCW 36.70A.020 (1), (4) and (12)]. The 2017 Upzone of the CG consolidated housing types in one of the least resourced areas of the city. For example: there is a 12:1 per capita park disparity between South Edmonds/SR99 when compared to downtown and a 3:1 - 4:1 disparity ratio when compared to Five Corners and North Edmonds, it has known fire service gaps (including 2 burned out complexes), there is currently no stormwater treatment prior to discharge to Lake Ballinger and many of our arterial streets do not have sidewalks and limited street lights. This is a subset of the resource gaps (and it should be noted these are public facilities that other areas of Edmonds have in abundance). I want to start here because I think it contextualizes the consolidation and increase of housing in the CG zone as a foundational abortion of GMA. Specifically looking toward housing there are a couple of resources and developments since the 2017 upzone that I want to make you aware of: Packet Pg. 286 9.1.k • Cracking the Zoning Code — This is a great and comprehensive resource that addresses housing, affordability and race. • This 99% Invisible podcast on the Missing Middle does a good job of explaining why high -density development was sited in communities like SR99 along the west coast in place of middle housing. • Prior to the upzone, in 2016 the SR99 condor was identified as a moderate risk for displacement, all other areas of Edmonds were identified a low risk (1). 1 believe that the risk factors for displacement in the SR99 community may be higher than identified in 2016 due to: the 2017 upzone and its implementation, Light Rail construction in adjacent Mountlake Terrace, buildable lands report, and existing approved and pending land use applications. • The GMA was amended in 2021 to establish anti -displacement standards and specifically require consideration of racial disparate impacts and displacement and recognizes "areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning and development regulations and capital investments" (RCW 36.70A.070). • There is recent legislation HB 1110 (and companion bill SB 5190) in the Washington Legislature to address middle housing options and require preemptive anti - displacement actions. During the Jan 26th ADB meeting discussion members cited the regional need for housing as a consideration towards maximizing the building heights in the CG zone. Maximizing building heights will only further simplify and exacerbate the unstable housing structure, contribute to displacement within the CG zone and adjacent neighborhoods and further exacerbate the critical shortfall of city services in this area. During public comments in 2017 the city stakeholders were informed that the planned action area had some of the most affordable homes in the city and the impact on single family homes needed to be mitigated. Many homes in the surrounding community have already experienced an increase of approximately 40% in value in the past three years, while this may seem like a good thing, poorer residents and those living on fixed income are currently (today) being displaced. Residents currently living in modular homes within the CG zone will be displaced from this area and supporting community (usually by significant distances) or become homeless. While I wish this were an exaggeration it is not, this is what happens when the lowest - income housing is eliminated. This is the reality of the SR99 area. While housing affordability will regionally improve with new units, this will not be the effect locally within the SR99 corridor without anti -displacement strategies in place prior to redevelopment and low income residents are currently being displaced. Many anti -displacement strategies are critically dependent on centering community voices in city re -development processes, matching anti -displacement strategies to neighborhood conditions and long-term investment (refer to Cracking the zoning code and Attachment 1). A two -tiered review of development and multi-lingual noticing and interpretation is needed, and is a key anti -displacement strategy for this community. Lastly with regard to HB 1110/SB 5190. 1 want to simply state the 2017 up zone does not provide but rather eliminated middle housing in this area. The only similarities between the 1 Puget Sound Regional Council: https://psregcncl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1769d732e3de4905baObf5ffaf75f6O2 Packet Pg. 287 9.1.k CG and HB 1110/ SB 5190 is that they address zoning and housing. They are different in how they function for the housing structure and foundationally different in intent. The 2017 upzone has no anti displacement strategies (standards that would be required if the upzone occurred today) and is leading to an exclusionary housing structure in this area. In contrast the past and proposed legislation provides middle housing and requires anti -displacement prior to upzoning. It is an oversimplification to conflate the type of growth in the CG zone with middle housing bills. Planned Action The community vision identified in the planned action and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be the used as the City's highest and best use for the CG zone. I would like to identify the following context information: • The planned action identifies mixed -use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. "Create housing choices attractive to people from all walks of life." With regard to housing, this community identified three- to four- story apartment buildings as the desired outcome and the planning scenario identified three-story apartments with taller mixed use with residential densities for those uses ranging between 51.2 to 82.6. • The planned action and SEPA compliance documentation identify upper floor step backs. Both as recommendation 6.8 and as mitigation incorporated into the planned action for adjacent and across the street: "across the street from single family zone provide 8-foot step back from the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16- foot upper storm step back from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet" (page 1-7 FEIS). • The city has not undertaken locally -funded mitigation as identified in the SEPA compliance documentation (Environmental Impact Statement. EIS). The redevelopment of highway 99 is a state -funded action. • The city council has approved the development of a supplemental EIS due to the environmental impacts that are already evident in planned action implementation in Ordinance 4079. Please review attachment 1 which is a subset of the documentation developed in support of the supplemental EIS. During the Council discussions in late 2022 that led to the passage of interim ordinance 4283 Council President Tibbott reminded us that the Hwy 99 redevelopment is the largest undertaking in the history of Edmonds. The complexity is very high, and it will take time for Council and city staff to correct the issues that have become apparent since action was taken in 2017. • The zone is being primarily utilized for housing and not for the mixed commercial, commercial -mixed, and housing use as intended. The thresholds set for the planned action are: 3,325 residential dwelling units and 1,634,685 square feet of non- residential uses. The current issued permits in the CG zone represent 10% of the housing units allowed under the planned action with another 10% of the total allowed housing units currently being proposed —This is 20% of the planned action total, while currently less than 1% of the non-residential square feet have been issued permits or are proposed. I think it is useful context for the ADB and planning board to consider the range of uses visioned for the CG zone which is a primarily commercial, mid -rise mixed use and mid to low-rise residential. In combination the vision of the planned action should be used as the "highest and best use" of the CG zoning code. Maximizing the housing allowed any Packet Pg. 288 9.1.k individual parcel does not implement the vision for this area. Maximizing the parcel level housing will economically prohibit the mid to low-rise apartment buildings visioned by the planned action from occurring. Developers will not propose these housing types if the boards seek to "maximize" rather than execute the vision of the planned action. In short once you allow one development to maximize housing, you cannot go back. Maximizing housing at the parcel level will also prohibit the full re -development of the zone because it is clear that the total residential units allowed by the planned action will be exhausted far before the commercial redevelopment occurs. The CG zone does not have sub -zone designations. Because of the breadth of what is allowed in the CG zone a two-step public review process is needed to conform individual site plans to the overall mixed vision. Similarly, because the zone allows taller building heights for mixed and commercial uses, there need to be stringent step backs from some feature to make the three- to four-story apartments vision achievable. In this zone step backs are not "artificial" thev are needed to create the housing choice visioned by the planned action. The Council's interim ordinance 4283 seeks to keep the step back promises made to this community and documented in the existing EIS. It should be in effect (at a minimum) until the supplemental EIS is complete. This will allow the supplemental EIS the ability to consider different options to meet the planned action vision, bring the planned action into conformance with current environmental and anti -displacement requirements, mitigate and prevent the likely outcomes from this zone: the community being exploited or individual developments from being challenged for not being in conformance with the planned action. Equity I would like to challenge your perceptions of this area of Edmonds. Please take the time to look through the resources identified in the Growth Management section and the 99% Invisible podcast. The land use pattern we have in this City and siting high density residential in the most racially diverse and underserved areas is typical of many on the west coast and it is not an oversight. Before I talk about underinvestment, I want to briefly state some process inequities: • The first discussion of the removal of step -backs occurred approximately 1 hour after the last public meeting for the planned action and SEPA. The removal of step backs was not functionally part of the public visioning or environmental review process. • This area is diverse with many people speaking languages other then English in the home. It is my understanding that public involvement and meetings were not translated or interpreted. • In 2017 the CG zone was consolidated and left up to planning department discretion without a public process until the emergency ordinance. When compared to the differentiation of zoning classifications downtown, the swath of CG in the SR99 corridor with the actions to create a "sense of place" left undefined by the planning process is unfathomable for the primary commercial area of the city. • As noted during the January 26t" ADB meeting, downtown has a two-step public development review process for development that is a fraction of the size of what is occurring in the SR99 corridor. • The ADB was not part of the CG zone updates and has not previously reviewed the CG zone for conformance with the planned action vision. Packet Pg. 289 9.1.k The 2020 Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Hwy 99 corridor was never implemented through new development code design guidelines in 2020. Specifically, land use policy # C2 states " Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design ... and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties." The building design standards in development code section 16.60.030.D focus on the principle of 'variety' and are silent on the principle of 'transitions to less intensive zones' that are identified in the planning documents for this area. With regard to investment: the SR99 corridor/CG zone is located in an area of current and historic racial diversity and it is my understanding that this area, similar to adjacent areas in Shoreline, was redlined. The SR99 corridor is also the commercial sales tax driver of this city and is the second most densely populated area (second only to NE of Five corners, not downtown Edmonds). The City council created maps illustrating the investment pattern, property value and population including race of the City prior to the 2022 budget season. I have a pending public records request, and hope to provide them to you as part of this packet (I will send them once I receive them). It is difficult for me to succinctly describe the profoundness of the resource disparity of this area. Imagine an area that is thriving with commercial business (roughly 2/3 of the current commercial sales take revenue) but all that investment goes to a different area of town. Now imagine that occurring every year for 60 years. There are reasons why the city until recently only owned a half -acre of fee simple property in this area (now it is up to roughly 1 acre), why the city counts unopened rights of way as parks serving this area (see photo), why there are prolific park disparities even in comparison to noncommercial neighborhood in less diverse areas of the City, why the city undertakes a $15M renovation to Civic Park instead of the mitigation for the CG up zone, why this is the only area of the City with a ridiculously underinvested in shoreline (Lake Ballinger), why this area has a thriving commercial area but has overhead utilities, limited streetlights and no sidewalks. Drive the other half of Lake Ballinger in Mountlake Terrace sometime and understand a fraction of the investment that should have been here in comparison to an adjacent non-commercial area that is not in Edmonds. Because of the underinvestment the City now considers this area to be a definable blight under state law (see attachment 1), this is simply the result of local - taxes generated from this area not being spent here for 60 years. So it is difficult to hear the boards and City talk about how we should accept development that is not in alignment with the vision because of sidewalk and street light improvements. This area should have had those amenities decades ago through our tax dollars and identifying development as the only way to get those amenities now omits the decades of City inaction. In summary, the up zone is causing impacts to this community and does not meet current standards, the up zone is not being implemented in accordance with the planned action, setbacks were promised and have a land -use function within this zone, and those who live here are people too. I say this last bit because we are often not treated with similar consideration as those who live in the downtown view corridor. The desires for quality of life, aesthetics, livability, local consideration, neighborhoods and neighbors (our elderly that Packet Pg. 290 9.1.k are being displaced) that we recognize are not less because the city has so prolifically underinvested in this racially and economically diverse area. People in this area deserve every due consideration that is regularly provided to people living downtown. I would like to ask that you keep the interim step backs in place until the Supplemental EIS is complete and the City has the opportunity to evaluate options to meet the vision for the planned action. The current breadth of the CG zone to allow fully commercial and fully residential uses is confusing and does not provide developers sufficient assurances that proposed applications meet the vision for this area, which leads to a loss of their time and money. I have tremendous sympathy for developers affected by the interim ordinance; however, the interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the planned action to this community. I can also understand the desire of some to maximize the building heights in order to maximized the density far in excess of the residential densities (51.2 to 82.6) visioned for the planned action as a regional benefit. Seeking to maximize housing in the SR99 corridor in excess of the vision will bring more units to market BUT within the local context serves to protect whiter and wealthier Edmonds neighborhoods from needing to meet growth targets. If you do choose to reduce or overturn the building height step backs, I hope you will engage on some amount of personal reflection for this fact. The SR99 community is bearing the brunt of both past and present underinvestment, and growth that is not supported by existing infrastructure. While limited improvements have been made the city has shown with Civic Park (instead of park mitigation for the upzone), the PROS plan, and ongoing budgets that the tax dollars from this area will continue to be redirected to downtown Edmonds. There needs to be space to equitably meet the overall housing need while not forcing this diverse and underserved area to be so heavily impacted. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Parkland serving the SR99 area Photo 1— Un-improved utility ROW that is closed to public by "no trespassing' sign is currently identified as the Interurban Trail Special Use Park. The Interurban Trial is actually located along 76`" Avenue W. in this area. Packet Pg. 291 9.1.k To: Edmonds City Council Edmonds Mayor From: Natalie Seitz Date: 19 September 2022 Re: Ordinance 4079 — Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea I would like to provide the following comments to the City and Council for consideration for the scheduled review of Ordinance 4079. 1 am providing these comments with the specific request to Council to supplement the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), OR amend the Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea. Supplementing the EIS or amending Highway 99 Subarea plan is critical and time sensitive to ensure sufficient mitigation for existing and newly identified significant adverse impacts including blight, parks, fire services and the displacement of residents from the City of Edmonds. I have organized my comments into two sections addressing SEPA review and Council Action. would appreciate the opportunity to virtually meet with the City and Council members at your earliest convenience to go over the comments and answer any questions you may have. SEPA Review In accordance with Section SB of Ordinance 4079: "This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the SEPA Responsible Official to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures (Emphasis added)." As further specified in Section 5B the purpose of this review is to determine if amending the ordinance, supplementing or revising the Planned Action EIS is warranted. Therefore WAC 197- 11-405(4) is also relevant to the SEPA review: A supplemental EIS (SETS) shall be prepared as an addition to either a draft or final statement if.• (a) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts, or (b) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Based on a review of the 11 August 2022 Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review Memorandum to Council "11 August 2022 Memo", the city has not met the requirements of Ordinance 4097 and SEPA as amended by the agency SEPA procedures (including procedures contained in Ordinance 4097). Specifically: 1. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to environmental conditions. In the 11 August 2022 Memo environmental conditions were only analysed as a result if implementing the preferred action. This by definition is "impacts of development" and not the "environmental condition" as required by Ordinance 4097. The environmental condition of the planned action area has been 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 292 9.1.k significantly altered by the effects of the pandemic on economic conditions, displacement, and delay in critical fire services (re: Plum Tree fire). These conditions have resulted in the City now undertaking consideration of the SR99 corridor as a blight. The environmental conditions relative to Parks has specifically been altered with the update of the PROS plan which set forth new levels of service and provides new information on the geographic distribution of park resources (see attachment A updated based on the Final 2022 PROS plan). 2. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to the impacts from development. As noted in bullet 1: the city is now undertaking consideration of the SR99 corridor as a blight. "Blight" is a significant impact as defined by WAC 197-11-440(6)(e). The city has also documented significant park impacts associated with the stormwater upgrades which is a connected action to the ordinance (January 2022 Lake Balinger Regional Stormwater Facility Feasibility Report). In addition to these significant impacts the Growth Management Act has been amended to specifically require consideration of racial disparate impacts and displacement and specifically recognizes "areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning and development regulations and capital investments" (RCW 36.70A.070). The planned action is a significant cumulative displacement impact to this area (please refer to Attachment 2 of my 1/31/22 PROS Plan comments to Council that discusses the effect of the planned action on displacement in greater detail). Growth without investment in parks and infrastructure will also result in significant impacts which are further identified in bullet 3. 3. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to required mitigation measures. A major feature of the Growth Management Act is that the development and providing of public services and facilities and services needed to support development should occur concurrently, and planning and plan implementation actions should address difficult issues that have resisted resolution in the past, such as: Providing adequate urban services for the concentrated growth in those areas, and the siting of essential public facilities (WAC 365-196-010(1)(f)&(g)). The city has identified multiple mitigation measures in Ordinance 4079 which have not been met and are now resulting in significant impacts: o The city's mitigation for Fire and Emergency Services states that the city "will regularly review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have enough advance time to address the needs." Clearly the city has not addressed delays in service to the planned action area which has resulted in significant delays in response times to recent fires in the area (re: Plum tree fire). o The city has not met park mitigation requirements and has made erroneous conclusions in the 11 August 2022 Memo the "mitigation identified is still appropriate for development in the planned action area." Ordinance 4079 set forth 6 specific actions from the 2014 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2014 PROS plan) that were required to mitigate impacts. The city accomplished none of the six actions and the 2014 PROS plan has since been superseded by the 2022 PROS plan. Mitigation from the 2014 PROS plan as identified in Ordinance 4079 has not been identified or carried forward in the 2022 PROS plan therefore the City's conclusion that "mitigation identified is still appropriate for development in the planned action area" is inaccurate because 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 293 9.1.k the assumption that park mitigation would be undertaken is clearly not relevant. Please note that implementation of the required mitigation from the 2014 PROS plan is and has been feasible because the City currently carries an $8M surplus over reserves. The 2022 PROS plan also identified significant resource gaps to the SR99 area (attachment 1), and set forth new service level requirements both of which constitute new information for evaluation of the planned action. The investments specifically identified for the SR99 area ($3,890,900) in the 2022 PROS plan will not address past development allowed in the SR99 area in accordance with the growth management act (WAC 365-196-010(1)) and are not sufficient to support future growth (see attachment 2). There have been no new investments since the 2017 Ordinance and the population has grown from 2017 to present, in conjunction with and independent of the planned action, and this area will grow significantly further in the next 6 years based on approved and pending land use applications alone. Simply put one new park will not keep up with growth - the level of service provided to this already critically underserved area has decreased from 2017 to present and will further decrease further from now to 2028 resulting in significant direct and cumulative park resource impacts (refer to 2/23/22 comments to Planning Board and 3/1/22 comments to Council). o The city is not properly mitigating for impacts identified in bullet 2 including blight, displacement, and significant park impacts associated with meeting the stormwater requirements for development. 4. The City has met the substantive requirements for a supplemental EIS under both subsection a and b of WAC 197-11-405(4): o subsection a: There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts - The planned action has undergone a substile change which has been documented to have a significant impact on parks. As noted in bullet 2 the Lake Balinger Regional Stormwater Facility is a connected action to the planned action. However, the facility is located outside of the planned action area. The planned action requires that all development (meeting stormwater requirements is a part "development") must be within the planned action area. The proposed regional facility location constitutes a substantial change that is currently documented by the city as resulting in a significant park impact. o subsection b: There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts —There is significant new information detailed in bullet 2 and 3 that identify documented and probable significant adverse impacts not identified in the EIS or mitigated by the City. 5. The city has not undertaken notices of the planned action review as required by SEPA (as amended by the agency SEPA procedures). Please refer to attachment 3. Council Action Council action is needed to address deficiencies in the EIS and address impacts of the Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea. Council action is necessary because: 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 294 9.1.k • The council took action above the SEPA Responsible Official in adopting the findings of the EIS in Ordinance 4079, taking action to adopt or amend the findings of the planned 5-year review is consistent with past council action on this matter. The substantive requirements identified in the WAC 197-11-405(4)(b) have been met to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (bullet 4). • Ordinance 4079 5B. specifically identifies action vested in the Council (i.e. amending the ordinance): "Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS." • Council has taken action to amend zoning (BD2) outside of planned review periods and without documented determinations of significant impacts, both of which are present for the Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea. • Council positions represent all Edmonds residents, it is Councils responsibility to ensure all Edmonds residents are provided equitable pubic process and staff allocated resources as part of its oversight function. The City and Council have sufficient information and must supplement the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the WAC, OR amend the Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea. If the City chooses to undertake a Supplemental EIS, then appropriate funds should be allocated in the upcoming budget. 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 295 9.1.k Attachment 1: Park Area Comparative Analysis 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 296 9.1.k A - North B - Five C - Downtown D - South E - SR99 Edmonds Corners Edmonds Corridor Open space (1) 7.96 41.16 26.46 0 0 Community Park (1) 12.05 45.27 21.88 0 0 Neighborhood Park (1) 12.26 1.22 5.26 5.61 1.82 Special Use/Waterfront 4.06 0 54.96 0 4.16(6) Park (1) 9,939(2) 13,172(3) 7418 (4) 12,324(5) 2020 Census Population 2020 Census —80% White —70% White —85% White —70% _60% Demographics (white (7) White White alone, rounded to nearest 5%) 3.53 11.47 Total Park / 1,000 2.85 0.94 population (8) 3.12 3.57 0 Total Open Space / 0.80 1,000 population Final 2022 PROS plan $1,911,100 $25,296,200 $26,872,858 (9) $9,474,400 proposed investment Notes (A) N of Caspers St / Puget Dr (B) S of 196th St SW, N of 220th St SW, E of 9th Ave (C) W of 9th Ave, S of Caspers St (D) S of 220th St SW, W of Esperance (E) S of 220th St SW, E of Esperance (1) Based on parks as they are identified in Draft PROS plan Figure 5. City -owned Parks & Open Space (2) Census tracts 502 and 503. Census tracts don't directly line up and include small portions of neighboring jurisdictions so this is a slight overestimate. (3) Census tracts 504.02, 504.03, 504.04 (4) Census tracts 505.01 and 505.02 (5) Census tract 508 which would support the calculation for both South Edmonds and the SR99 Corridor include unincorporated Esperance. This total is an estimate based on City of Edmonds total 2020 population minus the tracts associated with area A, B and C. In 2020, South Edmonds is more populous than the SR99 Corridor. The South Edmonds/SR99 combined population is a slight underestimate since the population for Area A is a slight overestimate (see note 2). (6) Includes land that do not meet the definition of Park. (7) Area demographics range considerably from tracts that are 80.3% white alone to 63.7% white alone (8) Please note that these areas were calculated based on solely on resources located within area boundaries identified by the PROS Plan public engagement map. In some cases, areas like Downtown would experience higher City -provided Park services then what is reflected in this table since it is located is within the 2-mile service area for Yost Park. (9) may not include meeting Civic Stormwater requirements (approx. $0.5M) 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 297 9.1.k Attachment 2: Consideration of Growth and Development ASK: I am providing this information in support of the development of a multi -cultural community center serving the SR99 community (ref: stakeholder outreach with the Korean Community Services Center, Pg. 206) The Draft PROS plan and CFP would benefit from additional consideration of growth and development in relationship to Objective 2.1: Address accessibility barriers (socio-economic, language, physical, geographic, transportation) to parks and programs and allocate resources to address known gaps and anti -displacement strategies. The consideration of growth and development is inherent in development of the Parks and Recreation element: "Level of service standards should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to factors influenced by growth and development, to allow for counties and cities to more clearly identify the impact on the demand for park facilities resulting from new development" (WAC 365-196-440). Growth and Development should be a key consideration in the CFP. There was not sufficient information provided in the Draft PROS plan to illuminate where growth currently proposed within the City (see map from Slide 12 of the buildable lands report presentation provided to the Planning Board on 13 October 2021— Edmonds Pending shown in blue). This map does not include issued land use applications like GRE Apartments (193 New Residential Units). There is significant growth already approved and targeted to the SR99 corridor. Edmonds Gty Boundary wmoms WL&A Edmonds Rrkbng Short Plat - Fd MI Hat M MuRl-family Mwd-use 3.1' 1_41 3 30 g yb L,f f Sn Ca.r.r�w+�h'M�ps CaV�b�RIXs.�rtyioF aK 4�Y. WAs�4 us Final-di� NFRE Gamut SaTeG�h IYCPEM if'A MET4HFSA LWS gr. M Fine Mria3.rr M EPA NRS US Cc ug &mean. USDA 5vu�ces. Esn krh6 DS. V.In MA NA-%CGA0. N RWmmn MCEA_. N15 OS NMA Cropatr, inlswR Rjk—e . G$A iy.Ww4 FEMA. In — amtky C�5 —.vrrrru V 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 298 9.1.k The University of Texas Uprooted Project' provides tools for evaluating and preventing the likelihood of displacement. This tool kit has been used in the Puget Sound region to develop anti -displacement policieS2. In 2016, the SR99 condor was identified as a moderate risk for displacement, all other areas of Edmonds were identified a low risk'. I believe that the risk factors for displacement in the SR99 community may be higher than 2016 due to: the redevelopment plans for SR99, Light Rail station, buildable lands report, and existing approved and pending land use applications. The University of Texas Uprooted Project developed the following risk factors: Who is most vulnerable to displacement? . . Y411 Persons of People 25 and Renters People making at or Households i-olor older without a below 8G% Median With Children Bachelor's Degree Family Income in poverty The 2015-2019 American community survey narrative profile for tract 5094 (east side of Hwy 99, Edmonds) identifies that: • For people reporting one race alone, 57.7 percent were White; 3.2 percent were Black or African American; 0.7 percent were American Indian and Alaska Native; 11.7 percent were Asian; 1.4 percent were Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 12.6 percent were some other race. An estimated 12.7 percent reported two or more races. • 36.2 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher • Renters occupied 56.5 percent of occupied housing units • Median income of households was $65,948 and median earnings for full-time year- round workers was $47,664 • 17.7 percent of children under 18 were below the poverty level Many anti -displacement strategies are critically dependent on centering community voices in city re -development processes, matching anti -displacement strategies to neighborhood conditions and long-term investment. A multi -cultural community center serving the serving the SR99 community is a needed resource both to fill a recreation deficit but would also be a key investment that would support the city implementing anti -displacement strategies in this area in association with current pending land use applications. Please prioritize a multi -cultural community center serving the SR99 community in the PROS Plan CFP. University of Texas Uprooted Project: https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproiect/ z Skyway -West Hill and North Highline, King County: https:Hkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/community-human-services/housing- homelessness-community-development/documents/Plans%20and%20Reports/KC-SkywayW Hill-N Hln-ant-dsplcmnt- stratrpt.ashx?la=en 3 Puget Sound Regional Council: httos://Dsreecncl.maDs.arc2is.com/aoos/MaoSeries/index.html?aooid=1769d732e3de4905ba0bf5ffaf75f602 4 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/narrative- profiles/2019/report.php?geotype=tract&tract=050900&state=53&county=061 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 299 Attachment 3: SEPA Notices � � I � kB CL E 0 277 &g2 � 4§\ 4 EE - .§V � k%\ o e o•B k/ �z2 a 2j2 w i' \ (Az¥o CL LLl �ƒ/ƒ\ \%)f) .�Z2r� 0-1 < ) $G± t� 2(0�� " ])2 �nr0 »/§ƒ §■�� > tc£0 5 "r-±§ § Er CL �k§]§ kƒ2&� / 21 ]\k]§ -u .9 /E% )ƒ�f� )k�]ƒ /§\() E�2f] §f (2 a k § >1 /§7 ., ja, e71�■ 0 #�»�/~ b. ° go ƒIS %`�S CL. f2§UJ $[@ 91/2 Packet Pg. 300 9.1.k My name is Theresa Hollis and I am a resident of Edmonds. I read all the meeting minutes from the 2016-2017 period that are related to the highway 99 subarea plan to understand how we got here. The lack of transition zoning between CG and single family zones did not make sense to me, because transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. Here's some highlights of the information the Council was given in 2017 when they made upzoning decisions. The city had been permitting about 58 housing units per year for the prior 20 years. The city was getting ready to make the Hwy 99 subarea's design guidelines more stringent. The planned action report included projections from market research and conversations with developers. The report stated that the expected development was 3-4 story apartment buildings around the perimeter and 5-6 story mixed use buildings along Hwy 99. The Development Director's step back advice in the council packet for July 18, 2017 was : "the challenge to adding more setback/step back requirements is to not add so many requirements that building is discouraged." Those planning assumptions are not what we are seeing today. The 2022 development activity report to Council shows about 1000 housing units. I emailed you a photo that was part of the Planning Director's presentation to Council on July 18, 2017 and it's contrasted with a project that submitted in 2022 for design review at the corner of 80 and 236th. In key areas, the 2017 assumptions are being proved false. The planned action required a 5 year review and that is when Council reflected on the current development environment, required a supplemental EIS, and passed the interim ordinance. I'm going to address the debate going on in public before the Council and citizen boards. It's the neighbor's needs against the developer's needs. The parcel owner at 84th and 236th told the Council he's trying to close on the sale of that lot. He's already sold his other two apartment complexes in Edmonds in 2021; he's cashing out and moving on. We've heard from the potential buyer of that undeveloped parcel, their lawyer, the construction company, and the realtor who has the listing on the parcel. Their voices are loud and their message is urgent. The first project the parcel owner submitted in 2021 was only 4 stories. But the market is strong and there was more profit to be made by selling the land. The current owner received a windfall from the City when the allowable number of units was upzoned from 52 to 261. 1 don't understand why any business who received that size of a windfall should be given even more consideration today. Are you hearing from any other members of the building industry in South Snohomish County? Are you hearing from the Sightline Institute — a group of planners that develops land use policy? Are you hearing from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County that has an interlocal agreement with Edmonds for low income housing? I've researched how other cities have codified that a project on a more intense zone transitions to a single family zone. I've emailed you links to code chapters that I thought were relevant. Kirkland makes heavy use of what they call upper story set backs — and the set back starts above the 3rd story.( ref: Design Guidelines for Pedestrian Oriented Business Districts). Bellevue has very thorough code language in a Transition Area Design District.( ref: 20.25B) It applies city -wide and uses step backs as one of the transition techniques. Redmond has design criteria for transitions that includes step backs, set backs and 60 ft maximum height, and it is implemented by a zoning overlay. Bothell provides flexibility in using a combination of setbacks and step backs to mitigate the building mass. "The height of new development shall not exceed a height of 3 floors within a 65 foot buffer from the minimum required Front Yard Setback line" when the project is next to or across the street from single family. (Chapter 12.64.203) Where 100 ft tall buildings are allowed, they accomplish separation by deep site set backs (Chapter 12.64.108). For example, a 75 foot building on the UW campus that is across the street from a single family residence zone requires 145 ft of set back — that's 55 feet more than in the Edmonds example sketch in your packet. Packet Pg. 301 9.1.k Do the research on neighboring cities and you too will conclude that the Edmonds interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating bulk. The ADB was given a narrow question to respond to in a short period of time when you were asked to review the interim ordinance. I encourage you to NOT to fiddle with the height language tonight. Continue the interim ordinance as the Council defined it, because the more challenging work is ahead. There's even more Edmonds can do to improve our development code. Use future work sessions to develop new thinking on transitions around the boundary of the CG zone. Design criteria for transitions are a very important tool to be able to increase the density in our city while maintaining the quality of single family neighborhoods. As Council president Tibbott reminded us all in December, Hwy 99 area redevelopment is the biggest undertaking in the history of Edmonds. https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/planning-amp-building/o-4785-design- guidelines-pedestrian-oriented-business-districts.pdf Kirkland Design Guidelines https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.25B Bellevue Transition Area Design District https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.25B.050 Bellevue: The larger the building, the greater the number and variety of such elements that may be necessary to achieve the effect of diminishing scale https://bothel1.municipal.codes/BMC/12.64.203 Bothell Special Height Regulations https://bothel1.municipal.codes/BMC/12.64.108 Campus building setbacks https://redmond.municipal.codes/RZC/21.50 Redmond Transition overlay Packet Pg. 302 9.1.k Example of Across -the -Street Transition City Council presentation by Planning Director on July 18-2017 (5 story building) PLN 2022-0047 design review application submitted June 17-2022 (6 story building) Packet Pg. 303 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:18 PM To: Joe.Herr@edmondswa.gov; Jeude, Maurine (Arch Design Bd); Strauss, Lauri (Arch Design Bd); Steve.Schmitz@edmondswa.gov; Bayer, Kim (Arch Design Bd); Alexa.Brooks@edmondswa.gov; Loch, Corbitt Cc: Clugston, Michael; Levitan, David Subject: ADB's Mar 8 mtg - public comments on code departures for the CG zone These comments describe my understanding of the City Council's modification of the CG design code in interim ordinance 4283, and how code departures can be justified in the design review process codified in section 20.12.020. The phase 1 meeting is (among other purposes) for the applicant to present departures from the development code. The applicant's exercise of their responsibility for presenting departures to the step back requirement is what the City Council intended. To confirm the Council's intent, see Dec 10, 2022 Council approved minutes, last paragraph on pg 30 and continuing to page 31. Excerpt: "With this amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that step backs are not required due to local circumstances." The findings of fact related to this ordinance are in the council packet for Jan 24, 2023. The last finding states Council "would benefit from a planning board recommendation on that ordinance and related subjects." I think it is a big stretch to assume that finding of fact means the ADB should narrow the circumstances in which step backs are required by using one feature of 'local circumstances' — right of way width. There are other relevant 'local circumstances' that an applicant could use to justify a departure from the step back requirement. Design techniques that reduce the perceived mass of a building are well documented in the code of other cities in our region and in design literature. Such design elements can be used by the applicant to justify the departure. A representative but not complete list follows. They describe hypothetical projects on the boundary of the CG zone. The applicant's design flexibility is increased by not prescribing a single 'local circumstance' in the code. • Parcels on the neighboring residential zone are at a higher grade than the CG parcel(s) in the proposed project and only 1 step back at the 6th floor is needed to reduce the perceived mass of the new CG building. • The first floor of the proposed mixed use project has horizontal massing and an awning such that the height of the building is not fully visible and is not overwhelming to a person at the street level. • The site design increases the setback with a front courtyard with public amenities that invite the pedestrian onto the property and creates a focus that minimizes the impact of the building's upper stories. • The building modulation, materials, and color make the project appear to be multiple side -by -side buildings that transition to the 3 story multi family buildings on adjoining parcels. The use of step backs would disrupt the visual effect of multiple buildings. • The design of the lower floors and the street scape zone have a strong set of human scale features that reduce the perceived mass of the building for pedestrians. • The corner CG parcel both adjoins IRS parcels (back yards abut) and is across the street from IRS parcels. The wedding cake effect of step backs on 2 faces of the new project is recognized by the design industry to be unattractive design (and is expressly prohibited in some jurisdictions' code). Packet Pg. 304 9.1.k • The face of the CG building is across the street from the side yards of the RS zone's single family homes. The movement in and out of the single family house' front door does not include the new CG building in it's line of sight. Existing landscaping in the RS zone blocks the CG building occupant from seeing into the backyards of the residences. • The multi family's building face has residential characteristics at each ground floor apartment entry such as two steps up from the sidewalk to the entry, with a planter or small porch and effectively transitions to an RS zone. (see image below of a building in Vancouver B.C) • The RS parcel across the street is permitted for a non-residential use so the new project is not impacting the residents of single family homes. Although the process of presenting code departures is an accepted industry practice, the Edmonds development code section 20.12.020.A.2 does not explicitly state that the applicant may submit code departures in phase 1 of the design review. Consider adding language that has the same intent as Kirkland's code on Architectural and Human Scale in the Central Business District: "As an alternative, the City may approve other techniques, elements, or methods of consistent with the following criteria 1) The alternative is generally consistent with the downtown plan provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the design guidelines. 2) The alternative clearly provides superior moderation of the architectural bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the required techniques." Kirkland's code language on how to moderate bulk and mass is much more lengthy than Edmonds' code. I am not presenting ideas on how to moderate bulk. I am presenting sample language for how to explicitly invite an applicant to submit departures. ( See chapter 92.30 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kirkland/) A second local jurisdiction has brief language in their design review forms: "Please describe in narrative text and on plans any specific requests for development standard departures, including specific rationale(s) and a quantitative comparison to a code -complying scheme." A third jurisdiction inserts the phrase "provide an equal or better result than the requirements of this section" in many of their code chapters to describe an acceptable departure. In closing, I encourage you to keep sight of the purpose of step backs - to use site and building design to cause a 75 foot building to transition to the surrounding single family zone. My recommendation is: 1) Delete the sentence in 16.60.020.D "These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review..." 2) Add a sentence or two to the itemized list in 20.12.020.A.2 that invites the applicant to submit code departures during phase 1 of the design review process. Regards, Packet Pg. 305 Theresa Hollis 9.1.k Edmonds resident Photo credit: PlannerDan location: Vancouver B.C. Packet Pg. 306 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 5:28 AM To: Citizens Arch Design Board; Citizens Planning Board Cc: Clugston, Michael; Council Subject: Board Review of CG zone step backs - additional information referenced in 20 Feb Memo Attachments: 2021_Sales_Tax (1).pdf, Edmonds_Population_Income_2020.pdf, Edmonds_Population_2020 (1).pdf; Edmonds_Population_Race_2020.pdf; Edmonds_Population_CIP_2021.pdf, Edmonds_Property_Value_ 2021.pdf Hello, Good morning. Would a member of the planning board and architectural design board please confirm receipt of this information including attachments? I would like to follow-up and provide the maps identified in the February 20th memo sent to the ADB and planning board "Interim ordinance 4283 - CG Zone step backs" I hope you will review the attached maps and note the following: • SR 99 is the beating heart of commercial revenue bringing in more than 4 times the sales taxes annually then downtown and twice that of Westgate (see notes on 2021 Sales Tax Distribution map). I hope you are already aware that residential land use is generally not self supporting - meaning that the property taxes generally do not offset the amenities provided to residential areas. Taxes generated from commercial land use supports residential land use types. SR99 is by far the driver of where the City's residential land use amenities are funded from. countine both sales tax receipts and park fees collected from development. • Facility investments (dots) are primarily located downtown. The existing SR99 and South Edmonds population is already significantly under-resourced (e.g. 1/12 the per capita parks when compared to downtown and a quarter to a third of per capita parks when compared to other areas) the investments show that the City is not planning to make up for past inequitable investments or support future growth. • The majority of investments (streets) are state funded in the SR-99 corridor and is projected out to 2043 which visually inflates the graphic depiction of local investment in this area. • Edmonds' population has shifted to the east, and the current population of the Highway 99 area (east of 84th and 76th) exceeds the downtown area population (west of 9th; 220th and Puget). This shift will accelerate based on the planned action. • Areas to the east of the City have lower household income and are much more racially diverse when compared to downtown. • Areas of redevelopment on the SR99 corridor are located directly adjacent to some of the lowest residential property value areas in the City creating displacement pressure. • Please visit the Washington state department of health, health disparities mapping for Edmonds: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/wtnibl/WTNIBL/ (shown below). Please note that populations around Highway 99 areas receive significantly increased environmental exposures due to the highway. In my view it is a profound moral issue that this population lives with health impacts from the SR99 coordinator, has a greater population than downtown but does not receive the corresponding investment benefits from the commercial tax revenue. When the health disparities and the appropriation of tax generated in the SR99 to downtown is understood in conjunction with the historic and current diversity of this area it should be understood as institutional racism. Packet Pg. 307 9.1.k © Go Back to Topic Selection Environmental Health Lill Rank — Disparities V 2.0 6 l� Environmental Id 7 — Exposures Diesel Exhaust PM2.5 Emissions Ozone Concentration .hl 2 PM2.5 Concentration 1.1d 7 Proximity to Heavy Traffic .hl ■ Roadways Toxic Releases from Facilities .hl 6 (kSEt Model) I also want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the statements made during the February 23 ADB meeting. • The city administration has determined the current FEIS to be sufficient. This occurred concurrently with the SEPA responsible official resigning and was not based on the substantive requirements of the Washington Administrative Code (19 Sept 2022 memorandum re: Ordinance 4079-Planned Action for the SR99 Subarea). Please note the City administration's position is fundamentally inconsistent. The City administration is simultaneously asserting that the FEIS is adequate and are advising against the council and boards implementing the planned action evaluated in that FEIS. The FEIS planned action included: "across the street from single family zone provide 8-foot step back from the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16- foot upper storm step back from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet" (page 1-7 FEIS). A supplemental EIS has been approved and funded by the Council. • The City administration has put a single development proposal at the center of this policy issue by using a shadow study for a pending development application. Please consider the following questions: Is the shadow study representative of all development? Was the shadow study conducted for a range of dates to reflect representative shadows between the equinox (least impacts) and solstice (most impacts)? Does it take into account the shadows that would be cast by a similar situated building on the east side of Highway 99 where the topography is different? • This is not a project review and the boards are not required to evaluate the issue within the narrow constraints recommended by the City administration. It is, in my view, unwise and bad planning to narrowly consider the implications of policy questions. The boards can simply seek to uphold the Interim Ordinance until the Supplemental EIS is complete. • Code adoption is a separate process that comes after the adoption of a planned action and FEIS. The City Administration and Council did not put zoning in place consistent with the planned action goals and FEIS. Every day the City permits development that was not visioned by the planned action that is not mitigated (for many resource areas including displacement) disregards the FEIS and planned action public processes and this community. The City administration is advocating for a code consistent with their past decision -making (Hazel Appts) and not with the planned action vision for 3-4 story apartments, affordable housing, 6 story mixed use, and commercial development that creates jobs. If you want more multifamily housing density (and to kill your commercial breadbasket) then that should be a point of further evaluation and outreach to this community. We deserve that process. We know what happens when those who are more invested in downtown decide what is best (see issues summary below). The council and board are not districted which means that you do not have to "be from this area" to advocate for its interests, in fact you are called to represent all of Edmonds with the same fervor and favor as downtown. Packet Pg. 308 9.1.k Issues Summary Extensive oavine and lack of tree canoov High-speed, heavy trafflC arterial with I ' - - f few safe pedestrian or vehicle crossings i CIS _ Lack of sidewalks on side streets makes it hard for on foot bike, or wheels in = neighborhood to access Hwy 99 services shoplifting hot spot Vacant building....... • ......... °. Motels - domestic violence hot spat Aging buildings in pooror 19 below average condition 1 Burned -outbuilding Aid Large underutilized Slte Vacant parcels _ Oversized WSDOT-rights-af-way inhibit _ mobility and prevent development Thank you for your review of the maps and this e-mail. I would appreciate your vote to maintain the Interim ordinance or putting stronger protections in place in alignment with the current FEIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Thank you, Natalie Seitz Equity -driven policy = better outcomes for all Edmonds residents Packet Pg. 309 9.1.k AV AV q �AV A, ' I AV ��I �3 i AV AV A AV 'Five Corners MAIN $L Pr i 'ff AV i AV ' 12'TH AV 80WI)0/,VW4Y' AV AAwr x AV �' 'ff Ar ' AV Iff AV �� AV AV . A� AV , . AV , AV AV A' J�OTH ST SW i AV AV AV AV AV AV i A, 3 i 3S 3 .AV 'AV LU a i a F AV�A 3 AV wA z A a Ln AV AV ■ o / j AVi °� AV 00 PH W 2,WTH ST SW A Iff 'Westgate IA r D AV AV AV I AV �i 'AV Ar o A M AV i AV i A N Fr AV AV or 'Affr � N / i AV i i I A I* L AV L AV AV AV i ' AV �38TF( � "35TH PL S O i M r�Iff N Firdale rA&Z N AV A d ~ � AV ST SW AV E AV AV244T AV i O Active 2021 Sales Business Area Tax ID's Tax Mean Tax c Highway 99 257 $1,895,271 $7,375 E Downtown 313 $519,777 $1,661 Total 2021 Sales Tax $10,568,• Westgate 59 $217,957 $3,694 Total 2021 Addressed Sales Tax $2,811,1 Am - Five Corners 15 $20,707 $1,380 Total 2021 Business District $2,674,1 Q Firdale Village 9 $7,903 $878 Perrinville 10 $13,027 $1,303 E t M Of the $10 million in sales tax, around half had a physical address that could be mapped. The other half consists of tax revenue not Q attributed to a specific business operating within the City of Edmonds. 95% of the sales tax revenue or $2.7 million was located in the above business districts. Packet Pg. 310 Population per Acre 0.0 Total 2020 Population: 42,853 0.1 - 4.0 Highway 99 area Population: 7,746 4.1 - 7.6 (East of 84th and 76th) ■ 7.7 - 9.8 Downtown area Population: 6,443 . 9.9 - 12.7 (West of 9th; 220th and Puget) 12.8 - 17.5 Westgate area Population: 8,538 17 6 25 6 (100th; 220th; 84th) - 25.7 - 42.4 - 42.5 - 66.0 - 66.1 - 95.7 h 0 41 QP 0 0 0 m mmm- a� JZ a �s q p z O > 0 a � LU x 3 J C31 d a MAIN ST MMA1IIIII■ 9.1.k MEADo w %- v r a <F r, FgCy RO mm 176TH ST SW Mqti A #N ii mo l VAY ■ :� wORR 220TH ST SW M 3 3.W � I��y a L CD 00 CD r i 228TH ST SW f r t � y ■ 1 a� 9LF ° b 168TFRI FH ST SW 3 a r � x a C) 0 x .o v 188TH ST'. 1 TSW 1 a _it - -?6TH PL r IID �F III a -4 OTH ST S\ . Packet Pg. 311 1 2021 City Improvement Projects • Sewer O Stormwater • Street/Intersection Project • Non -Motorized Transportation Project • Water • Parks O Facilities Sewer Street/Intersection Project Non -Motorized Transportation Project PWT-61 PWT 0! z S w I. 564165800 GASPERS ST I 9.1.k I 3 J a 2 $59,4 0 w 168TH ST a ME46O x �z i- O PWD-04 F� $5,500,000 PWT-28 FgcyRo� WT-27 $1,,000,000 Q_ $671,000 $2,936,000 PWW-09 PWD-05 PWT-24 $ 42,000 $1,2 000 • $328,000 P' 9 $1,955,000 PWT-46 $678,000 PWT-03 PWT-17 0 �o5,377 196TH S' •_- $1,174,000 3 176TH ST SW ui Qu 180TH ST SW w 3 a > x a � 0 x � 188TH ST'. 3. 628,697 a Of w 200TH ST Q Z p Q q Q O 3 $2, 00 � �� 204TH ST SVA PWT-42 $186,549 x LU $924,00040 PWT,-07 01 0- PWT-40 $32,8700 ��PWT-65 03 $937,000 PWT-18 PWT-04�$80 010$320,860 MAIN ST pWT-33 208TH ST SW PWT-51lid $ 62,2 W 74,623 $2,894,000 $628,6 PWD-02 $357`000 $265,000 PWT-36 0 PWW-09 212TH ST SW � 0 PWD-01 w $1,500,00 0,000 a' eow PWT-12 $270,4 $3,290,000 DO/N wAY $45,015,000 PWT-45 w � :'►/T-37 a PWT-35 1,54� 88000 $20,072,000 PWT-48 PWT-16 220TH ST SW $324,000 3 $998,00 PW�41, $8, 70,341• PWT-19 �F PWT-55 Lu$41,001,00�_ QP a 3 $788,000 3 w PWT-11 = �Q 4 x a PWT-25 �35,242,000 o Ln $16,622,000 / o $17,112 a, � �26TH PL Sy, 3 3 $2,365,000 O $530,00 $14,700,000 $9,033,000ui $1,0 00o PWT-22 PWT-08 2 8TH ST S/$38,142,000 PWT-15 0 PWT-14 n PWT-21 PWT-20 $241,02900 " $1389,00 PWT_29 365,000 - PWT-47 pWT-20 $zo, v,000 0 $1,060,000 PWT-30 $790,00o PWT-09 $1, 94,00o PWT-64$1,831,000 PWT--13 PWT-06 `PWT-32 r PWT-31 PWS-11 I l)H ST S� 50,00o pWT-06 PWT-23 �32,000 PWT-,5$850,000�$1,2 5,000 $3 ,,50 $550,000 PWD-06 PWT-10 �PWD-07 F9L� ` I $6,000,000 Packet Pg. 312 1 9.1.k 2020 Annual Household Income 0 $1 - $64,577 $64,578 - $85,846 $85,847 - $108,594 - $108,595 - $142,206 - $142,207 - $196,635 V 'd ON E H PL Aq 200TH ST a� � 00 _ 204TH ST SVA F- 10 10 2�8TH ST SW Packet Pg. 313 Percent Non -White 0 1% - 13% 14% - 31% 32% - 47% 48% - 67% = 68% - 100% V d 0 z w BO M > ~ �E Q 1 0 old rl L ST w a 9.1.k ST Sl Packet Pg. 314 City of Edmonds 2021 Residential Property Value -� 11 logo .r .. 1 .1 • 11 ti��t°'�--� — F-11 ��-V4 M-Z-,O=qjl _P-- Ali�� i I MUT- _ l - - �, 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 1:59 PM To: Citizens Arch Design Board Cc: Planning; Levitan, David; Clugston, Michael; McLaughlin, Susan Subject: 3 corrections for ADB meetings about CG step back ordinance Attachments: Emergency Ordinance - Full Setback Summer Equinox 2022.mp4 Planning department members - Please review the three topics below and give corrected information to the ADB at their March 8th meeting. I have cc'd the planning board alias with the assumption they review the ADB meeting videos on this ordinance 1) Is CG parcel in Edmonds that is across the street from a residential parcel in Esperance affected by the ordinance? Yes - per Planning dept presentation to City Council on Oct 4th. See pg 16 of approved minutes. No - per Planning dept presentation to ADB on Jan 26. See video with about 42 min remaining 2) Does the shadow of a 75 foot building across the street from an IRS zone affect the single family homes in a material way? Planning dept comment at Feb 23rd ADB meeting that the Terrace Place building shadow would not reach to the middle of the street. See attached shadow study forwarded to me by a city council member in Nov 22nd where the Terrace Place project modeled the shadows on the summer equinox. These are the shortest shadows of the year, and they extend fully across the right of way and appear to cover most of the depth of the residential lot across the street. (The residences on 84th are modeled as 2-3 story buildings instead of the existing 1 story buildings). The proposed design takes all the required step backs starting on the second floor so that the units on the upper floors stack. Developers email text from Nov 2022 is also pasted below for context. 3) How many parcels are affected by the ordinance? About 40 - Planning dept comment at Jan 23 ADB meeting 55 residential parcels - my count from the zoning map, but it may not be exactly correct. Theresa Hollis Edmonds Resident paste of the email correspondence with the Terrace Place developer's representative on shadow studies. Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov> to Natalie, iudiglad2@gmail.com, Lora, me so sorry- thought I sent this last night. Begin forwarded message: From: Misty Klinck <misty(a cmaarch.com> Date: November 17, 2022 at 12:28:11 PM PST To: "Olson, Vivian" <Vivian.Olson(aedmondswa.gov> Cc: "McLaughlin, Susan"<susan.mclaughlin(aD-edmondswa.gov>, Brian Bergstrom Packet Pg. 316 9.1.k <brian(a�-synergyconstruction.com>, David Cohanim <david(c)-synergyconstruction.com>, Charlie Morgan Jr <charliejr(a�cmaarch.com>, "Tibbott, Neil" <Neil.Tibbott(d-)edmondswa.gov>, "Chen, Will" <will.chen(a�edmondswa.gov>, Stanley Piha <stanley(a)-stanleyre.com> Subject: RE: Terrace Place - Shadow Studies Reply -To: misty(a�cmaarch.com Good afternoon Council President, The full setback study that was prepared in a short amount of time and shared on November 15t" only had the exterior shell (no interior modeling). We have since added the interior modeling to the study named Emergency Ordinance — Full Setback Summer Equinox 2022. The two studies Hwy 99 Corridor Zoning - Summer Equinox 2022 and the Emergency Ordinance — Full Setback Summer Equinox 2022 have the same height and the same number of floors (both 6). Here is the link to the two studies https://we.tl/t- ANipeBz97K Both studies illustrate that the modification of the building according to the emergency ordinance changes nothing in terms of the building shadow impact. Shadows stop impacting the buildings across the street at the same times of day with or without the set/step backs. Thank you for sharing with the other councilmembers. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Misty Klinck Charles Morgan & Associates, LLC Phone: 425-353-2888 From: Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson(a-)_edmondswa.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 2:10 AM To: Misty Klinck <misty(a cmaarch.com> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin(D-edmondswa.gov>; Brian Bergstrom z Packet Pg. 317 9.1.k <brian(a�-synergyconstruction.com>; David Cohanim <david(c)-synergyconstruction.com>; Charlie Morgan Jr <charliejr(a�cmaarch.com>; Tibbott, Neil <Neil.Tibbott(o)_edmondswa.gov>; Chen, Will <will.chen(a�edmondswa.gov>; Stanley Piha <stanley(a)-stanleyre.com> Subject: Re: Terrace Place - Shadow Studies Misty- Thanks again for sending. I finally had the time to look at them. Are both buildings shadow studied the same height? If windows are the indication of how many floors each building has, one has 6 floors and the other has 5 which leads me to believe one is shorter than the other. I am waiting to send on to the other councilmembers until I have heard back from you so that if there is a corrected study, you can supply an updated link and updated analysis of how they compare. Thank you, Vivian Olson Council President 425 361-8176 Sent from my iPad On Nov 15, 2022, at 2:31 PM, Misty Klinck <misty(@cmaarch.com> wrote: Good afternoon Susan, Here is a link to two shadow studies done in response to a request by Councilperson Olson during the onsite meeting yesterday. https://we.tl/t- vvyYOKXk4r Packet Pg. 318 9.1.k Both studies illustrate that the modification of the building according to the emergency ordinance changes nothing in terms of the building shadow impact. Shadows stop impacting the buildings across the street at the same times of day with or without the set/step backs. Please share with any other members as you see appropriate. Sincerely, Misty Klinck Charles Morgan & Associates, LLC Phone: 425-353-2888 Packet Pg. 319 Memorandum: 9.1.k To: City of Edmonds Planning Board and Architectural Design Board From: Stanley Piha Date: March 8, 2023 Dear Planning Board and Architectural Design Board Members, As you discuss the matter of step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family residential zoned properties, please consider: Transit Oriented Development should be a significant focus of this Planning Board and Architectural Design Board, as is at the current State Legislative Session. 2. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, which is an Act relating to promoting transit -oriented development - a "Station hub" means all parcels that are "(b) fully or partially within a one - quarter mile radius of a major transit station" 3. Further defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, a "Major transit stop" means a site that is or has been funded for development as: (b) a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on high occupancy vehicle lanes. Like the actions occurring at the State level, governance Creating Transit Oriented Development opportunities should be prioritized by this this City Planning Board and Architectural Design Board. • The Recent announcement by Community Transit related to its 2024 Transportation plan Proposes a Shuttle Service from the Edmonds Kingston Ferry Terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station. There will be stops along the way, including the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 2381h and Highway 99. • This makes the intersection of 2381h and Highway 99 one of the most, if not the most transit concentrated hubs in the City of Edmonds. 238th and Highway 99 is the only intersection in the City with both North and South Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the Highway. • This creates an opportunity to designate a Transit Oriented Development radius as defined by the Senate Bill from this intersection, allowing the most accessible access to public transportation. The investment in public transportation has already been made. This is an opportunity to take advantage of that investment. • To piggyback on a suggestion made at the prior Architectural Design Board meeting regarding the CG Zone issues you will be reviewing this evening, it should be noted that multi -family properties already exist across the street from single family zoned property on 84th Avenue between 236th Street SW and 238th Street. In response to the clamoring for a transition between the CG Zone and the single family zone across the street, it was suggested to create the transition by changing the single family zones along 84th between 238th and 236th to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. By doing so, the transition is accomplished and those properties along both sides of 84th would already be in the sphere of the Transit Oriented Development radius to provide for additional future housing density. Packet Pg. 320 9.1.k • The quarter mile radius from the 2381h and Highway 99 intersection should be viewed by this Planning Board and Architectural Design Board as a Transit Oriented Development opportunity. Promoting density described in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to support this one unique transit hub will provide a means to not only address the housing crises our region is facing but to promote easy access to all forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. In consideration of the unique opportunity to plan and create Transit Oriented Developments, all properties within a one quarter mile radius of the Bus Rapid Transit hub at 2381h and Highway 99 should be excepted and removed from the conditions outlined in Emergency Ordinance 4283. Those properties within the one quarter mile radius and within the boundary of the Highway 99 subarea should be permitted to be developed now, to create housing now, all in accordance with the existing conditions outlined in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Conflict of Interest — Planning Board Chair Gladstone As noted at the February 2023 Planning Board meeting, Planning Board Chair Gladstone has gone on record more than once opposing a proposed project on vacant land we are part owners of at 23625 84th Avenue West. Planning Board Gladstone has expressed her opinion several times to require step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family zoned properties. Contrary to her assertion that she will participate in this evenings discussion in a fair and balanced manner, her past statements clearly demonstrate that she is biased in favor of requiring step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family zoned properties. Given this bias she cannot be a fair arbiter in this discussion. Planning Board Chair Gladstone should recuse herself from this discussion on the agenda this evening. If Planning Board Chair Gladstone does not voluntarily recuse herself from this discussion on the agenda this evening, the remaining planning board members and the Architectural Design Board Members should move to remove her from this discussion. Respectfully Submitted, Stanley Piha Packet Pg. 321 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Djemo Kazic <djemok58@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 8:13 PM To: Planning Subject: AM D2022-0008 To whom it may concern, I live on 236th SW and 84th ave. I am against any tall Building being built on the vacant lot across the street.. We already have a very busy Street With almost daily accidents nearly happening. We have a homeless problem on OUR Street and Dont want more unfamiliar Faces. We Dont want our neighborhood ruined With contsruction and random people. Those type OF dwellings always create more Crime. We have enough mail theft as it is. Please reconsider the Notion to Building anything besides single family homes. Thank you. Djemo Kazic Packet Pg. 322 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Glenn Douglas <glenndouglas46@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:50 AM To: Planning Cc: Theresa Hollis; Sue Pool; Sue Oskowski; Ann Marie Stacker; mgburke3140@comcast.net; Randy Hollis; Dawn Burke; becki chandler; Dennis Pool; Council Subject: AMD2022-0008 (Step Back Ordinance) Dear Planning Committee members, I reside near 84th Ave W and 236th Street SW where the Terrace Place development is planned for construction. This 75' tall building is going to be an eyesore for our quiet, single family residential neighborhood regardless of it's architectural design. We are all concerned about the impact of adding 500+ adults, children and their vehicles to our neighborhood. We feel very little thought has gone into the lack of infrastructure including roads, intersections, sidewalks curbs, street parking, and city parks which are all either overcrowded or lacking entirely. I personally believe changing the zoning of this property from residential to commercial in conjunction with the Highway 99 project to be a huge overstep and not in the best interest of the community. All that being said, the approval of the Step Back ordinance as a requirement for any 6 or 7 story building is a small, but important improvement to make the building less foreboding and somewhat less inhabited. You don't have to go far south on Highway 99 to see many 6 or 7 story apartment buildings with no step backs to realize how out of place Terrace Place will look here. I understand the pressure from the state legislature to provide more "affordable housing" in our cities, but I don't think they have this in mind for a neighborhood consisting of single family homes without the infrastructure to support such a development. Please keep these factors in mind during your approval process. Best regards, Glenn Douglas Packet Pg. 323 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:02 AM To: Levitan, David; Clugston, Michael Cc: McLaughlin, Susan Subject: RE: Public hearing for AMD2022-0008 postponed to April 12 Planning Board meeting Good Morning David, Thanks for the heads up. After your presentation to the ADB I did let Susan know that I thought the slides with the renderings were inaccurate for a site like ours. As in our case, there is SF zoned properties across two streets. Based on what was passed by the ADB, this appears it would require step backs on both sides of a building. Unless ADB maintains the ability to waive the requirements, constructability becomes a further complication. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanlev(@stanlevre.com www.stanleyre.com From: Levitan, David[ma ilto:David. Levitan @EdmondsWa.Gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:22 PM To: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public hearing for AMD2022-0008 postponed to April 12 Planning Board meeting Importance: High Hi Stanley: I am writing to let you know that the Planning Board public hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow evening has been postponed until April 12. David David Levitan I Planning Manager Planning and Development Department City of Edmonds, WA 425-771-0220, ext. 1223 david.levitankedmondswa. gov Packet Pg. 324 9.1.k From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:03 PM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>; Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Thank you for the confirmation David and the clarification. Much Appreciated. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4t" Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanley@stanleyre.com www.stanlevre.com From: Levitan, David[mailto:David. Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:43 PM To: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com>; Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Hi Stanley: Your comments have been received and distributed to ADB and we will print out hard copies. Tonight is not a joint meeting but instead two separate meetings (the special ADB meeting is at 5:30 pm and the regular Planning Board meeting is at 7 pm). Planning Board will not be discussing the topic this evening, so we will include your comments in the meeting packet for the March 22 public hearing. David Get Outlook for iOS From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:17:46 PM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>; Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Dear David or Mike, Would you please confirm receipt? Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. Packet Pg. 325 9.1.k 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanley@stanleyre.com www.stanlevre.com From: Stanley Piha [mailto:stanley@stanleyre.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:17 AM To:'Levitan, David' <David. Levita n @Ed mondsWa.Gov>; 'Clugston, Michael'<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: 'McLaughlin, Susan'<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Dear David and Mike, I would appreciate it if you would distribute these comments to the Planning Board and Architectural Design Board in advance of this evenings joint meeting. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanley@stanleyre.com www.stanlevre.com Packet Pg. 326 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:23 AM To: Planning Cc: Levitan, David Subject: Kirkland design guidelines doc Attachments: Kirkland -design -guidelines -pedestrian -oriented -business-districts.pdf Members of the Edmonds Planning Board, I am forwarding design guidelines for the City of Kirkland as an example of a well developed technical document that describes site and building design principles. It is more extensive than the ADB handbook used in Edmonds. On pages 5-10 it describes the level of importance of specific design techniques based on the purpose of the neighborhood. Read the document sections for districts that have a mix of commercial and residential uses, are pedestrian oriented, and allow tall buildings next to residential zones since that matches the Highway 99 planned area in Edmonds. The section on scale begins on page 28. This section is directly relevant to the recommendation you will develop for changes to the Edmonds development code on building step backs. I found this document to be objective and educational. I hope it will inform your group's discussions. (Mr. Levitan, please reformat the attachment as a Word doc if you have a version of Adobe Acrobat that allows that, since that is a format standard used by the board. The original doc is found on the web here: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/planning-amp-building/o-4785-design-guidelines-pedestrian- oriented-business-districts.pdf ) Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 327 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 1:09 PM To: Planning Subject: Planning Board public hearing AMD2022-0008 - T. Hollis comments Attachments: Planning Board Public Hearing 4-12-23.docx My comments for the Apr 12, 2023 public hearing are attached. Please distribute them to the members of the planning board. This Word document contains hyperlinks to the code repositories of Bothell and Shoreline for the members of the board who want to do further research. Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 328 9.1.k Planning Board Public Hearing on 4-12-23 for interim ordinance 4283 I strongly support the requirement of building step backs when a CG project is located across the street from an RS zone. This design feature is a common mitigation to the bulk and mass of a tall building that needs to transition to a less intensive residential zone. Here is the development code (pasted from the web) of two nearby cities that require step backs 'across the street': Bothell and Shoreline. The step back requirement is often evaluated in the context of the maximum building height and the required set back from the property line. Those dimensions are also included in the information copied from the cities' code repository. Note that Edmonds' height maximum is 75 ft in the CG zone. A. Downtown Bothell 1) Bothell's code language about building step backs for structures next to or across the street from a residential -only zone: https://bothell.municipal.codes/BMC/12.64.203 Special Height Regulations are established to create an appropriate height relationship between new development within the Plan Area and existing buildings in adjacent residential - only zones. They shall be required for parcels located in Districts as indicated in BMC 12.64.101 through 12.64.109 District Requirements Site Development Regulation Charts. Where required, the following regulations apply: A. Adjacent to Residential -only Zones. Where new development is on a parcel adjacent to a parcel with residential -only zoning: As shown in Figure 12.64.203 Special Height Regulations — A. Adjacent to Residential -only Zones, the height of new development shall not exceed a height of 3 floors above finished grade within a 65 foot buffer from the minimum required Special Setback line Adjacent to Residential -only Zones (see BMC 12.64.210). The first 10 feet of the upper -level setback shall not be used as a roof terrace to protect privacy of residents on abutting properties or across an alley. District Property F Required min. Height Limit Residential -Only Zoning Fig. 12.64.203.A. Special Height Regulations - adjacent to residential -only zones Packet Pg. 329 9.1.k B. Across the Street from Residential -only Zones. Where new development is on a parcel across the street from a parcel with residential -only zoning: As shown in Figure 12.64.203 Special Height Regulations — B. Across the street from Residential -only Zones, the height of new development shall not exceed a height of 3 floors above finished grade within a 65 foot buffer from the minimum required Front Yard Setback line (see BMC 12.64.207). RF Required min. Frontal, District Yard Setback Height Limit Zoning i( Street Fig. 12.64.203.B. Special Height Regulations - across the street from residential -only zones 2) Bothell's district -level dimension regulations are documented below. See the zoning map map at the end of this section for context. 12.64.102 Downtown Neighborhood District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height 2 floors & 20 feet maximum height 5 floors & 65 feet; (H) 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 0 ft / 10 ft; (SR 522) Packet Pg. 330 9.1.k 12.64.105 General Downtown Corridor District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height 1 floor & 20 feet maximum height 4 floors & 45 feet 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 20 ft / no max 12.64.107 Park and Public Open Space District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height n/a maximum height 35 ft 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 0 ft / no max 12.64.108 Campus District Requirements The UW Bothell Campus shares a part of it's west boundary with single family residential. The boundary is at the back yard property line of the single family parcels. The mitigation to the tall campus building's mass is deep building site setbacks, not step backs. The code is here: https://bothell.municipa[.codes/BMC/12.64.108 Packet Pg. 331 3) Bothell's zoning map and map legend h ZEDG,0 N� ORSHEIRINEw MEN I OEM NEW Homo women a Wolin min N-*- [IT SPECIAL REUMT LEMND 1\011 — Sp"M weigh, Lim "4-AcoCB, q I Packet Pg. 332 1 9.1.k AP L -(;L--N1} -Downtown Core Q�Z Special Open Space Requirement S" SKTWn 12#1,101 5re Sic uan 12,6�4.3U4,D -Downtown Neighborhood Anderson Building See Section 12.64-102 See 5cKlion 11-64.1rt1-B.2 Downtown Transition District Plan Area Boundary SeeSeaion 1254.103 SR 522 Corridor F Parking Exceptions Se# Se[t14M1 1 6+I.1P4 Sec Set6oft 12.64-10I.K3 General Downtown Corridor Pedestrian Oriented Retail Required See Secdon 13AU M Ste Set%im 12,E+4.1U1,A SunriseNalley Vipew iiiiiiiii Neighborhood Center Overlay (NCO) Neighborhood seesKvw 12m.1g4 See 5edjon 12-64.109A -Park and Public Open Space .... ■ required New Pre -Located Street Ste SeG OrL 12.64.107 S" S"Ii4n 12A4,341 AZ Campus Required New Pedestrian Walkway SWk)n 12.04.108 See Section 12.64.301.D2 SR 522 Corridor Affordable Housing A, B, C, D Split Parcel District Boundary Overlay see seaion,2A4.i1Y .4 See Seclion U-64.10E-CI.-s Special Riverfront Cverlay 9 ComeF Entry Required See Section 12.64. 1 G43.2 See Sedan 12,E -M.0 4 Floor Height Overlay ............ Mobile Horne Park Overlay See 5e[ti0n 12.64.102.A See Scctlon 12A4.104.R3 60C Affordable Housing Overlay See Section 12-64.105.0-4 Downtown Tramitian Overlay F %Housing Downtown Transition District Affordable s" Semft 12M.103,9,1 Qvl day Sre 5edion QL4-141BA B. Shoreline 1) Chapter 20 of Shoreline's code contains the language about building step backs for commercial buildings next to or across the street from single family residential zones. 20.50.021 Transition areas. httas://www.codeoublishin2.com/WA/Shoreline/htmI/Shoreline2O/Shoreline2O5O.html#20.50. 021 Development in commercial zones NB, CB, MB and TC-1, 2 and 3, abutting or directly across street rights -of -way from R-4, R-6, or R-8 zones shall minimally meet the following transition area requirements: a) From abutting property, a 35-foot maximum building height for 25 feet horizontally from the required setback, then an additional 10 feet in height for the next 10 feet horizontally, and an additional 10 feet in height for each additional 10 horizontal feet up to the maximum height of the zone. From across street rights -of -way, a 35-foot maximum building height for 10 feet horizontally from the required building setback, then an additional 10 feet of height for the next 10 feet horizontally, and an additional 10 feet in height for each additional 10 horizontal feet, up to the maximum height allowed in the zone. Packet Pg. 333 9.1.k b) For development within the Aurora Square Community Renewal Area, maximum building height of 35 feet within the first 10 feet horizontally from the front yard setback line. No additional upper -story setback required. 2) Table 20.50.020(3) — Dimensions for Development in Commercial Zones (Certain rows for setback and height are shown. The full table is here: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shoreline/html/Shoreline20/Shoreline2O5O.htm1#20.50. 020) Commercial Zones STANDARDS Neighborhood Community Mixed Town Business Business Business Center (TC- (NB) (CB) (MB) 1, 2 & 3) Min. Front Yard Setback (Street) (see Oft Oft Oft Oft Transition Area Setback, SMC 20.50.021) Base Height (a) 50 ft 60 ft (b) 70 ft 70 ft Exceptions to Table 20.50.020(3): a) The following structures may be erected above the height limits in all commercial zones: a. Roof structures housing or screening elevators, stairways, tanks, mechanical equipment required for building operation and maintenance, skylights, flagpoles, chimneys, utility lines, towers, and poles; provided, that no structure shall be erected more than 10 feet above the height limit of the district, whether such structure is attached or freestanding except as provided in subsection (3)(f) of these exceptions. b. Base height may be exceeded by 15 feet for rooftop structures such as elevators, arbors, shelters, barbeque enclosures and other structures that provide open space amenities and their access b) Base height may be exceeded by eight feet for properties that qualify for SMC 20.40.465(D) or 18 feet for properties that qualify under SMC 20.40.465 3) The City of Shoreline's zoning map is rendered as a 11x17 inch pdf and can be viewed with a browser: https://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/52116/63760837192967000O Submitted by Theresa Hollis, Edmonds Resident, via email on 4-7-23 Packet Pg. 334 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Jan Steadman <steadyjan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:44 PM To: Planning Subject: public hearing AMD2022-0008 - J Steadman comments Attachments: PB public hearing 4-12-23_ Jan Steadman.pdf see attached Packet Pg. 335 9.1.k My name is Jan Steadman and I live in Edmonds. I'm going to give you a little history. Building step backs are a common regulation in land use planning when there are no transition zones and a tall building needs to transition to a less intensive zone. In fact the authors of the Highway 99 environmental impact statement required these step backs. The transition zones around the boundaries of the planned area were upzoned to 75 feet. Step backs on the buildings that are across the street from single family zones were a very very important mitigation to that upzoning. But when the City Council adopted the related code changes they were advised by the Planning Department Director (see the July 18, 2017 council packet) that "the challenge to adding more setback or step back requirements is to not add so many requirements that building is discouraged." Edmonds had a sluggish development environment for decades. Residents gave the city the nickname "Deadmonds". We were permitting about 58 housing units per year for the prior 20 years. The City Council had no idea when redevelopment on Hwy 99 would start. They made a conservative decision and did not require step backs 'across the street'. What is the development activity today? The 2022 development report shows almost 1000 housing units. Three 75 foot tall buildings are planned within % mile of each other in the Hwy 99 area. The buildout of light rail, successful development in neighboring Shoreline, years of low interest rates, and work from home policies have contributed to this demand. The City Council was required to review the Hwy 99 Planned Action ordinance and the assumptions that influenced the policies after 5 years. Staff made a presentation to Council on Oct 4, 2022 and told them these step backs across the street from residential were consistent with the comprehensive plan and were supported by policies in the planned action report. Simply stated — they're good planning. After weeks of discussion and public input, the Council made 2 decisions: 1) ordered a supplemental EIS and 2) created this interim ordinance. To those who are concerned that step backs increase the cost of construction, remember these CG property owners on the boundary of the Highway 99 area already received a huge windfall from the city's upzoning. And it's not the city's job to maximize the profit of developers. The neighbors made public comments about their concerns with tall buildings in 2017 and were largely ignored. Now we are back, and our concerns are the same. Interim ordinance 4283 should be made permanent. Packet Pg. 336 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 2:08 PM To: Levitan, David; Gladstone, Judi (Planning Board) Subject: requested correction and elaboration - PB hearing on 4-12-23 for ord 4283 Hello, I am concerned about 2 of the topics discussed between staff and the board during the public hearing for interim ordinance 4283 on 4-12-23. 1) Staff's presentation included building diagrams created in the sketchup app. The commentary included an explanation something like " building modulation is required" . But modulation is not required. Rather, it is included in the criteria list where the design shall include 'at least 4'. See 16.60.30.D.1 and 2. My interpretation of the code is that modulation has no greater or less importance than step backs as a mitigation to the building's mass. Were the planning board members given the impression that modulation is more effective than stepbacks? 2) A board member asked for a summary of the 2 phase versus 1 phase of design review processes. In my opinion, part of the answer should have been the comment that an important rationale for 2 design review meetings by the ADB is that priorities are established in the first meeting. Then the design is evaluated against those priorities. This prioritization becomes a very important justification for any developer who wants to avoid building stepbacks because in their opinion the site/building design does not need that mitigation of mass. Here's the code snippet from 20.12.005.A that was in pg 26 of the meeting packet. "The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code." Please send corrections/elaborations to the planning board members in advance of the Apr 26, 2023 meeting. regards, Theresa Hollis Packet Pg. 337 9.1.k Levitan, David From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 6:11 AM To: Citizens Planning Board Subject: Thank you Hello, Good Morning. I am writing to you as a resident. I want to send my appreciation for your consideration last night of the vision for the SR99 planned action. I appreciate the board's recommendation. Thank you! -Natalie Seitz Packet Pg. 338 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Public Hearing on the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On May 9, 2023, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee. Staff Recommendation After the presentation a public hearing will be held. Narrative The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2024-2026), but not the last 3 years (2027-2029). RCW 35.77.010 requires each city to update and adopt their TIP prior to July 1st. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions after City Council approval. Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal/State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2027. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal/State funding. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Presentation Attachment 2 - 2024-2029 TIP Attachment 3 - Resolution Packet Pg. 339 Inc. 18913 Public Hearing 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program May 16, 2023 Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Introduction }_ -- ','lirh Construction projects in 2023 4 � _ 11. Scheduled construction projects (2024 / 2025 ) tki, -- 111. Other projects identified in TIP IV. Recently secured grants `- Public Hearing /Questions? �} Introduction OF EWMIIIIIII L1 � O Inc. I S913 • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP by July 1st. • Document contains all significant transportation projects that a City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years. • City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first three yea rs. • Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects. mal transportation Construction Projects in 2023: Annual Overlay Program (Project #1) Protect Description Approximately 2 lane miles of variable depth overlay along local/collector streets Schedule Construction — Summer 2023 Fundin • Local funds • Utility Funds • Annual Funding Goal $110001000 $4501000 A.. www www SR-99 Revitalization & Gateway Project — Stage 2 (Project #8) Project Description • Installation of landscaped raised median along entire corridor from 244t" St. SW to 210t" St. SW with 130 trees • HAWK signal ^J 600, north of 234t" St. SW • Gateway signs on both ends of corridor Schedule Design 2020-2022 Construction 2022-2024 Construction Fu nd i n • Connecting Washington • Local funds $81219,000 $270,000 WEIIIIIII OF EL1 Inc. 1S913 �O ,k Citywide Bicycl (Project #41) e Improvements project Project Description • Project to be combined with Elm Way Walkway • Install sharrows along 80th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW • Install bike lanes along key corridors 0 100th Ave. W / 9th Ave. S from 238th St. SW to Walnut St. o Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. S to 84th Ave. W 0 228th St. SW from 78th Ave. to 80th Ave. W Schedule Design Construction Construction Funding • Local Funds • Sound Transit Access grant 2020-2022 2023-2024 $520,000 $1.25 Million OF EL1VO Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. 9th Ave. S (Project #23) Project Description • Identified as Short Walkway #6 in 2015 11 Transportation Plan Complete missing sidewalk links (^' 700' new sidewalk on south side of street) ADA curb ramp upgrades with stormwater upgrades Project to be combined with Citywide Bicycle Improvements project Schedule Design Construction Construction Funding • Local funds • Stormwater funds (Fund 422) 2021-2022 2023-2024 $550,000 $350,000 S to OF EL1VO 2023 Traffic Calming Program (Project #42) Project Description Installation of traffic calming devices along certain stretches (based on evaluation results) .4 .. ,rk Schedule w Construction Fall 2023 '. Na Fundin Local funds $331000 '" Construction Projects in 2024/2025: Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave (Project #2) Project Description • Overlay with ADA curb ramps upgrades • Pedestrian Improvements at Main at 8th Ave. crossing Schedule • Design • Construction Construction Funding • Local funds • Secured Federal Grant 2023 2024 WEIIIIIII OF EL1 Inc. 1S913 -- r $187,000 $7501000 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW (Project #29) Project Description Install sidewalk on east side of the stretch Schedule • Design 2023 • Construction 2024 Funding • Federal ARPA Funds (secured) • Grant Funds (unsecured) • Local Funds $160,000 $750,000 $250,000 WEIIIIIII OF EL1VO Green Streets 236th St SW from 84th Ave. W to Hwy 99 (Project #33) Project Description • Roadway narrowing to reduce traffic speeds and to reduce impervious surfacE (vehicular capacity retained) • Sidewalks and planting strips added • Bioretention cells collect runoff from the road through curb cuts Schedule • Design 2024 • Construction 2025 Construction Funding • Federal ARPA Funds (secured) $1,385,000 • Grant Funds (unsecured) $2,413,000 r�F E�1 Other Projects in 2024-2029 TIP Inc. 1S913 Corridor Imarovements • 228th St. SW from Highway 99 to 95th PI. W (Project #13) 2027-2029 • SR-99 Revitalization from 244th to 238th Stage 3 (Project #9) 2022-2028 • SR-99 Revitalization from 220th to 224th Stage 4 (Project #10) 2022-2029 • SR-99 Revitalization from 216th to 212th Stage 5 (Project #11) 2027-2029 • SR-104 Adaptive System from 236th to 226th (Project #16) 2022-2027 Signal Upgrades • Puget Dr. @ OVD (Project #5) 2027-2028 • 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (Project #6) 2027-2028 • Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (Project # 7) 2028-2029 Other Projects in 2024-2029 TIP Intersection Improvements • 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW (Project #12) • 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W (Project #14) • Main St. @ 9th Ave. (Project #15) • SR-104 @ 95th PI. W (Project #19) • SR-104 @ 238th St. SW (Project #20) PF- :7. I �J+lA T r 9{� Inc. IS913 2021-2027 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 Inc. I S913 2027-2029 2027-2028 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 Other Projects in 2024-2029 TIP Active Transportation Proiects • 4t" Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (Project #34) • SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W Non -Motorized Transp. Impr. (Project #36) • SR-104 @ 100t" St. Bike Improvements (Project #42) • SR-104 / Pine St. Sidewalk (Project #40) • Walkway projects within proximity to schools / parks o Maplewood Dr. Walkway (Project #22) 0 80t" Ave. Walkway from 212nd St. SW to 206t" St. SW (Prof. #24) 0 80t" Ave. W Walkway from 188t" St. to Olympic View Dr. (Prof. #25) 0 95t" PI. W Walkway from 224t" to 220t" (Project # 26) r Other Projects in 2024-2029 TIP Other Projects/Planning Document • Waterfront Emergency Response Study • ADA Transition Plan • Pavement Rating Study • Safety Plan Update • Transportation Plan Update 01 Summary of secured transportation grants (between 2019 and 21 WNW Hwy 99 Revitalization from 244th St. State Funds (through Design / ROW / Construction 7,500,000 Apr ' SW to 210th St. SW Connecting WA) for specific stages 2019 Total $16,500,000 - Main St. Overlay from 6th to 81" STP / Federal Design / Construction $750,000 Dec 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW CMAQ / STP Federal ROW $244,000 Dec ' ' Intersection Improvements SR-104 ITS Adaptive System CMAQ/ Federal Design $354,560 Dec . 2020 Total $1,348,560 9- Hwy 99 Revitalization from 220th St. CMAQ/ Federal Design $1,5801000 Apr . SW to 224th St. SW (Stage 4) 2021 Total $1,580,000 ' Hwy 99 Revitalization from 244th St. State Funds (through Design / ROW / Construction $22,500,000 Apr ; SW to 210th ST. SW Move Ahead WA) for specific stages OVD Overlay from 196th to Talbot STP / Federal Construction $700,000 No Hwy 99 Revitalization from 220th St. STP / Federal ROW $2,597,500 No SW to 224th St. SW (Stage 4) 2022 Total $25,797,500 Green Streets — 84t" & 236tn ARPA Design /Construction $1,545,000 Dec Walkways 2023 Total 1 $ 9.2.a L X .�� cn • a)N CDN e N O N L CD r @1 FITI fD1mail] C12 on I .L\OF*14:101.�I!U[�10m P - - - - - - --- - - -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - RANTS APPROPRIATIONS AVER LAST 5 YEARS 0 $ 47; N L a m E � s ea Gl c a� E U R Ef Packet Pg. 356 F U 2023 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FUNDING 0 Local Funds 0 Secured Grants nF JV - F U Public Hearing / Questions? rNV r Af- Project Name New Projects (not in 2023-2028 TIP) Secured grant funding (shown in last year's TIP) Recently secured Grant Preservation/Maintenance Proiects: 1. Annual Street Preservation Program 2. Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 8th Ave. 3. Olympic View Dr. Overlay from 196th St. SW to Talbot Rd 4. Citywide Signal Improvements 5. Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades 6. 100th Ave. W @ 238th St. SW Signal Upgrades 7. Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades Safetv / Caoacity Proiects: City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 2024-2029 Purpose Grant Opportunity Project (2024-2029) Phase(s) I Total Cost Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal, and slurry seal Grind pavement, 2" overlay, and curb ramp upgrades Grind pavement, overlay curb ramps uprades, and vaned grates catch basin grate upgrades Upgrade traffic signal cabinets and improve technology Upgrade traffic signal Rebuild traffic signal system with new signal mast arms and new vehicle detection Upgrade traffic signal Possible Grant Engineering $750,000 $10,620,000 & & Local Funds Construction $3,900,000 Secured Grant $624,800 & Construction $0 Local Funds $155,200 Secured Grant Engineering $700,000 $0 & & Local Funds Construction $801 Engineering Local Funds & _ Con str Eng, $293,000 Possible grant & d $0 Local Funds Constru 293,000 Engineeri $0 Possible Grant & '000 Construction ble grant Engineering -Is Construction Source(s) (Federal, unsecured) (Fund 125, Fund 1� (Local, uniden` (Federal 'X rund IL ., secured) (State) ,Local, General Fund (Federal) (State) (Local, unidentified) (Federal, unsecured) (Stat,' al, unsecured) (State) (Local) TOTAL 9.2.b 2024 I 2025 I 2026 I 2027 I 2028 I 2029 $100,000 $650,000 "000 $2,600,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 a1 O 00 $700,000 $200,000 $600,000 $30,000 000 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $45,000 $45,000 $248,000 $248,000 $165,000 $773,000 $55,000 $55,000 $300,000 $83,000 8. SR-99 Revitalization & Gateway Project Stage 2 (out of total of 9 Stages along Hwy 99) Install raised median along the entire corridor in order to improve corridor safety (restrict left turns to / from two-way left turn onto private driveways), a HAWK signal, and Gateway Features cured Gra. fired Grant, Ible Grant, & I Funds i Li is $0 ;truction $50,M $0 'V, $0 $3,130,000 '97,721,000 %0 .,ctiol, . ign, ROW, $ , and $1,2 $80,000 $40,000 $13,000,000 $1,457,000 Construction $2,725,000 (Federal) (State, secured) (Local) (Federal) 'eral, unsecured) te, secured) unsecured) (Local) $50,000 9. SR-99 Revitalization Project (from 244th St. SW to 238th St. SW) Installation of planter strip, lighting upgrades, utility upgrades, and Stage 3 (out of total of 9 Stages along Hwy 99) capacity improvements at Hwy PO " (additional northboi - 10. SR-99 Revitalization Project from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW Installation of ,nting upgrades, utility , and Stage 4 (out of total of 9 Stages of Hwy 99) capacity im, s at Hwy 99 @ 220th St SW 11 nothbou hound / westbound left turn 11. SR-99 Revitalization Project from 216h St. SW to 212th St. �' f planter strip, irr Stage 5 (out of total of 9 Stages along Hwy 9 pac `iwy 99 @ 2N ,rn u. southbou, 's / bike lane , & westbound mu. 12. 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Ir' RE rsection to r. "section delay and Improvements 1. el of service rious utility im{ are also inL a project. 13. 228th St. SW Corridor improvements fro Widen roadwa o-way left turn tretch or Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W left t at specific inters I walk and bike Ian 14. SR 524 (196th St. SW) @ Design intersec vements and addition of guardrail on 88th Ave W. Intersection the west side ction due to 12' vertical drop (grade. Improvements adjustme a sight distance to be considered). quisition romplete7intersectionimprovements $2,600,000 $1,284,000 $1,087,000 $40,000 $20,000 $269,000 $1,400,000 $1,523,400 $143,600 $40,000 $20,000 $704,000 $1,917,000 $100,000 $970,000 $753,000 $539,000 $13,000,000 $3,130,000 $10,621,000 $13,500,000 $13,000,000 rederal, secured) Federal, unsecured (State, secured) (Local, Fund 421) (Local Fund 423) (Local, unidentified) (Local, Fund 125 / Fund 126) (Local, Traffic Impact Fees) Pos nt oc ..ds ad Grant, Possible Grant, & Local Funds Design, ROW, and Construction $3,950,000 (Federa, unsecured) (State) (Local) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $0 $3,950,000 Design, ROW, & Construction $5,338,500 (Federal, unsecured) (Federal,secured) (Local, Fund 421) (Local, Fund 422) (Local, Fund 126) (Local, traffic impact fees) $346,000 $30,000 $424,000 $274,750 $7,000 $181,000 $5,338,500 $500,000 $482,500 $350,000 $620,750 $537,000 $0 $482,500 $955,000 Possible grant Engineering, ROW, & Construction $0 (Federal) (State, unsecured) (Local) $2,947,000 $6,550,800 $6,550,800 $16,048,600 $0 Possible Grant & Local Funds Engineering $0 (Federal) (State, unsecured) (Local, traffic impact fees) $165,000 $98,000 $165,000 $98,000 ROW $0 (Federal) (State, unsecured) (Local) $119,000 $119,000 $119,000 $119,000 Construction $788,000 (Federal, unsecured) (State) (Local) $788,000 $0 $0 15. Main St. @ 9th Ave. Installation of traffic signal or mini -roundabout. Possible grant & Local Funds Engineering & Construction $644,000 (Federal, unsecured) (State) (Local, Traffic Impact Fees) $98,000 $98,000 $546,000 $546,000 $0 $644,000 16. SR-104 ITS Adaptive System Install ITS Adaptive System along SR-104 from 236th St. SW to 226th St. SW Secured Grants, Possible Grants, & Local Funds Engineering, ROW, & Construction $118,000 (Federal, secured) (Federal, unsecured) (State) (Local) $118,000 $19,000 $1,751,000 $273,000 $1,751,000 $0 $310,000 a_ H M N O N N O N N C G1 L v Q C N E t V M r Q Page 1 Packet Pg. 359 City of Edmonds Six Year Transnortation Imnrovement Proaram (2024-20291 9.2.b Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Project Phase(s) (2024-2029) Total Cost Source(s) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 17. SR-104 @ 226th St. SW/ 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements Extend SR-104 Westbound left turn lane and complete bicycle improvements with traffic signal improvements. Possible Grants & Local Funds Engineering, & Construction $237,600 (Federal, unsecured) (State) (Local) $21,600 $21,600 $216,000 $0 $21,600 18. Westgate /SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection Access Management Provide safety improvements within proximity to the intersection by providing better access management on all approaches Possible Grants & Local Funds Engineering, & Construction $628,000 (Federal, unsecured) (State) (Local) $628,000 $144,000 $36,000 $6,000 $192,000 $36,000 $0 $144,000 19 SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements Provide C-Curb with left turn channelization for access management. Possible Grants & Local Funds Engineering, & Construction $228,000 (Federal, unsec (Sta $0 $42,000 20. SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal and other intersection improvements. Possible Grants & Local Funds Engineering, ROW, & Construction $1,267,000 (F calIL $191,000 $$30,000 $1,076,000 $170,000 $0 $200,000 TOTAL $6,2 $6,210,750 $2,362,000 $29,136,000 $25,149,000 $36,954,800 5; Pedestrian Projects: O L E 21. Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Install sidewalk on south side of Walnut St. from Engineering, (Federal) 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Possible Grant & u0 (State, unsecured) $290,000 Co 0 (Local) r_ O ., 22. Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to Install sidewalk on Maplewood St. from Main St. to 200th St. SW, Engi $2,951,000 (Federal, unsecured) $220,000 $220,000 $2,511,000 200th St. SW creating connection to Maplewood Elementary and Yost Park. Possible Grant & $0 (S O Constru $0 O N 23. Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S Install sidewalk on Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S, creating $0 to 9th Ave. S connections to Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools. Local funds Constructio e) Only 0F(Feder und 112) $12,200 Engineering und 422) al, unsecured) $7,800 L d 24. 80th Ave. W Walkway from Install sidewalk on Both Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW, $110,000 $120,000 $1,352,000 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW creating connections to Chase Lake and College Place t & (State) >_ Elementary Schools. Construction (Local) >C 25. 80th Ave. W Walkway from Install sidewalk on 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. ossi Engineering $1,64 (Federal, unsecured) $345,000 $1,300,000 N 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. creating connections to Seaview & & $0 (State) N Elementary School. ocal Fund uction $688,00 (Local, Fund 422) $137,000 $551,000 0 26. 95th Pl. SW Walkway from Install sidewalk on 95th PI. W from Bible Grant g $0 (Federal) N 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW 224th St. SW to 22 & $474,000 ate, unsecured) $109,000 $365,000 N to improve paN l Funds Co, $388,000 (Local) 1 $22,000 $366,000 G N y 27. 232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to Install id,-w;;lk le Grant 28,000 I, unsecured) $142,000 $786,000 SR-104 & tate) Fu uction (Local) $142,000 $786,000 C O 28. 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Pr on one side of 236th St. ngineering (Federal,unsecured) $148,000 $846,000 97th PI. W & (State) C S Construction $994,. (Local) $148,000 $846,000 L y 29 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 3rant, $0 (Federal) 234th St. SW Provide s one side of 84th Ave. Pos. nt, and Construction (State, unsecured) $750,000 = $750,000 ids (Local , Fund 125 / Fund 126) $250,000 _v .0 $250,000 30. 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St. Engineering $0 (Federal) Provide side hort Loca 3nly & (State) d $0 $44,000 Construction (Local) $44,000 a 31. 218th St. SW Walkway Pos: it Engineering $869,000 (Federal, unsecured) $132,000 $737,000 tall sidewal ing link & (State) $0 from 76th Ave. W to 84th A Instal, Ik on the 216th St. SW al Funds ossible Grant Construction (Local) $132,000 $737,000 N $869CD ,000 32. 216th St. SW Walkway from Engineering $165,000 (Federal, unsecured) $165,000 to 72nd Ave. W wy. 99 to & & (State) N $0 $55,000 Installation of sidewalk on , of the 236th , r 84th Ave. W to Hwy 99 Local Funds Construction (Local) $55,000 C N 33. Green Streets - 236th St. SW Walkway from 84th A 'wy 99 Secured Grant Engineering $0 (Federal , secured) $298,000 $1,087,000 & & $0 (State, unsecured) $2,413,000 ' Create corri ements to encou strian Local Funds Construction (Local) N r 4) d $0 34. 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancements Possible Grant Engineering $8,000,000 (Federal, unsecured) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 Walkway activi th Ave. N from Main to & & (State) 3rd Ave. N (from n retail to Edmonds Center for the Arts) Local Funds Construction $0 (Local) 35. ADA Curb Ramps Improvements Construc ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) R $1,545,000 facilities don't exist urrent standards / PW concrete crews upgrade & & (State, unsecured) $515,000 $515,000 $515,000 41 Q $0 curb ramp upgr al program / also included as part of Capital Projects Local Funds Construction (Local, General Fund) 36. SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -motorized In ramps, extend bike lanes,and complete signal Possible Grant Engineering, $0 (Federal) Transportation Improvements cations in order to improve non -motorized & ROW, and (State, unsecured) $261,000 $1,310,000 d $1,571,000 $0 $0 ive feasibility study (west SR-104 @ 76th Ave. signal /owned by Shoreline. Local Funds Construction Engineering (Local) (Federal) v 37 Pedestrian Safety Program pedestrian safety improvements at pedestrian crossings ch as RRFB's, Flashing LED's at stop signs, and signage. Local funds & (State) M $0 $120,000 Construction (Local, unidentified) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Q 38. Downtown Lighting Improvements Install additional street lights on both sides of Engineering $0 (Federal) $1,500,000 Dayton St. (cobra heads combined with pedestrian lights) and other Possible Grant & (Sound Transit, unsecured) $328,000 $1,310,000 $0 locations within proximity to Edmonds Transit Station. Construction (Local) Page 2 Packet Pg. 360 City of Edmonds Six Year Transnortation Imnrovement Program 12024-20291 9.2.b Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Project Phase(s) (2024-2029) Total Cost Source(s) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 39. Citywide Lighting Improvements Following completion of Citywide Lighting Study identifying priority locations with gaps, install street light poles at top ranked locations throughout the City. Local Funds Engineering & Construction $0 (Federal) (State) (Local) (Federal) (Sound Transit, unsecured) (Local) (Federal) (Sound Transit 100 /' (F, 11 cal) TOTAL $1,3b $3,520,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $75,000 40. SR- 104/Pine St Walkway: SR-104 from mid -block crossing - 400' north of Pine St. to Pine St. and Pine St from SR-104 to 9th Ave. S Complete sidewalk missing links to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity to Edmonds Transit Station. Possible Grant Engineering & Construction $0 $273,000 $273,000 $2,730,000 $3,276,000 $0 41. Citywide Bicycle Improvements Install bike lanes along 100th Ave.W 19th Ave. W from 244th St. SW to Walnut St., Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W, and 228th St. SW from 78th Ave. W to 80th Ave. W. Secured Grant and Local Funds Construction 1 $0 $50,000 $0 42. SR-104 @ 100th Ave. IN Bicycle Improvements Extension of bike lanes for the southbound movement on north and south side of intersection along 100th Ave. W (bike lanes to be extended from what proposed as part of Citywide Bicycle Improvements project Possible Grant Engineering, ROW, and Construction $1,597,000 $206,000 $258,000 $1,133,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $4,215,000 $9,615,000 $16,199,000 Traffic Calming I Non -motorized Transportation Safety Projects: 43. Traffic Calming Program / Non -Motorized Transportation 44 Ferry Storage Improvements from Dayton St. to Pine St. 45. Waterfront Emergency Response Study Traffic Planning Projects: 46.Ciitywide ADA Transition Plan 47. Pavement Rating Study 48. Safety Plan Update 49. Transportation Plan Update Traffic circles, speed cushions, radar feedback signs, bulb -outs, etc. Provide additional ferry storage area closer to the Ferry Terminal (through striping revisions I C-Curb addition) Complete study to determine best solutions to address Waterfront Emergency Response Complete a compliance evaluation of all existing ADA curb ramps, as well as long range plan on how to address all those defficiencies. Analyse the pavement condition of all arterial, collector, and local streets to determine epaved as part of f Update the City's Safety Plan, idenf gY establishment of _eking based o, ri Update Trans�ftn (current Plan was com 5) Local Funds only A-O ngineer Possible Grant & Construct e Grant Study 4 ngineer -al Funds & Funds Only the City and rods O Engineering L Awr & IF (Federal) (State) Fund 125 & Fund 126) $18,000 TOTA $18,00( �d) r (State) ocal, Unidentified) $50,00( TOTAL $50.00( (Federal) (State) General Funds) $150,000 (Federal) (State) General Funds) $45,000 unsecured $200,000 fate) (Local) $50,000 (Federal) (State) (Local) $150,000 TOTAL $595.000 )00 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 `0 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $380,000 Total $162,396,550 $11,168,000 $12,578,750 $5,275,000 $37,224,000 Total Federal $2,870,800 $2,885,150 $970,000 $12,461,500 Total Federal (Secured) $2,670,800 $2,885,150 $970,000 $0 Total Federal (Unsecured) $200,000 $0 $0 $12,461,500 Total State $4,487,000 $3,956,600 $265,000 $18,060,000 Total State (Secured) $3,737,000 $1,543,600 $100,000 $13,000,000 Total State (Unsecured) $750,000 $2,413,000 $165,000 $5,060,000 Sound Transit (secured I unsecured) $50,000 $0 $0 $601,000 Total Local Fund $3,760,200 $5,737,000 $3,505,000 $6,915,500 Total Local (Fund 112) $231,200 $0 $0 $2,342,000 Total Local (Fund 1251 Fund 126) $2,288,000 $3,322,000 $2,271,000 $2,000,500 Toal Local (Fund 421) $70,000 $47,000 $0 $500,000 Total Local (Fund 422) $7,800 $0 $0 $137,000 Total Local (Fund 423) $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees) $693,000 $2,098,000 $539,000 $546,000 Total Local (General Fund) $350,200 $200,000 $645,000 $0 Total Local (unidentified) $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,390,000 $39,726,000 $56,424,800 3 $10,936,600 $28,773,000 d $0 $0 a $10,936,600 $28,773,000 H O $19,480,800 $7,065,800 G $10,621,000 $0 N $8,859,800 $7,065,800 N O $1,583,000 $2,730,000 N N $7,210,600 $18,989,000 C $3,160,600 $3,081,000 tv $1,518,000 $1,518,000 L $0 $0 0 $551,000 $0 2 $0 $0 Q $546,000 $0 $45,000 $0 c d $1,390,000 $14,390,000 E t v W r r Q Page 3 Packet Pg. 361 9.2.c RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2024-2029 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on May 171h, 2023 and to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2024 to 2029 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of Transportation. -1- Packet Pg. 362 9.2.c RESOLVED this day of , 2023. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON -2- Packet Pg. 363 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Resolution related to Primary Clarifier Emergency Corrosion Damage Repair Staff Lead: Oscar Anti llon Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History On May 16, 2023, Public Works Director Oscar Antillon notified City Council of the Mayor's decision to Waive Bid Requirements for the rehabilitation/replacement of the mechanical structures (rake arm, center cone, corner sweeps, etc.) inside Primary Clarifier #1 at the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Purchasing requirements state that in case of unforeseen circumstances/emergency the Mayor can waive bid requirements to purchase supplies, materials, equipment or services to stabilize the emergency condition. Within two weeks of confirming the emergency exists, the City Council will adopt a resolution certifying the emergency. It is essential for the WWTP to have full hydraulic treatment capacity before the fall/winter wet season begins. Primary Clarifier #1 is one of three primary clarifiers available to treat incoming wastewater by creating detention time that allows settleable solids to be removed from the water. It is critical to be able to remove as many solids as possible through primary clarification, especially during high flow events where limited hydraulic capacity could result in excess solids entering and exiting the secondary process. The consequence resulting in permit violations and possible fines. Staff Recommendation Approve Emergency Resolution. Narrative This project was originally planned for 2021 but due to the ongoing Carbon Recovery Project, staffing issues, and the failure of other critical equipment this project was postponed. This project was added to the CIP budget for 2023. In late 2022, a portion of the steel rake arm structure had corroded to the point of failure and broke apart, rendering the clarifier unusable. The cost for this part was approximately $13k. After consulting with the manufacturer, City staff were able to balance the rake arm by removing the section opposite of the corroded section that broke apart. This allowed the clarifier to be used in an "emergency only" mode during high flow events for the remainder of the wet season, as we did not want to invest funds into a structure that was going to be rebuilt in the next few months. This equipment is critical to the plant maintaining the maximum hydraulic treatment capacity available and allows us the ability to maintain NPDES permit requirements during high flow events. As this equipment is currently in a state of imminent failure and would surely not last an entire wet season if it was pressed into service for any substantial amount of time, this repair must be complete before the wet weather season begins (late Sept/early Oct). The only way to accomplish this is to begin the process Packet Pg. 364 10.1 of repairing this rake arm structure immediately so that it can be constructed and installed within the necessary time constraints. Please see attached photos of the deteriorated structure and the accompanying quotes for repair with timeline included. Note: photos are from June 2021. Attachments: Rebuild -It Primary Clarifier Contract _May 2023 Resolution declaring an Emergency and Waiving Competitive Bidding Requirements Packet Pg. 365 10.1.a oV E t}AIL)14k. ' C_ I S9 CONTRACT ROUTING FORM N o. 20230509170642531 (City Clerk Use Only) z Originator: Michael Derrick Routed by: Batyah Chliek O Department/Division: WWTP Date: i= a p� Name of Consultant/Contractor: Rebuild -It Services Group co CONTRACT TITLE: c Primary Clarifier #1 Internal Steel Structure Replacement Type of Contract: (GR) Grants ❑ (1) Intergovernmental Agreement ❑ (L) Lease Agreement Z I ✓ I (S) Purchase of Services n (W) Public Works n (0) Other w I— Z Bid/RFP Number: O 0 Upon execution of the Contract Date: Completion Date: Within 180 days of Ci Y tY's issuance of I-- _Effective _ Has the original City contract boilerplate language been modified? Oi Yes ONo Noticeto proceed. If yes, specify which sections have been modified: pDescription v of Services: Replace underwater steel components on a 65-foot diameter Clarifier. Original Serial No. 23883-02. Total Amount of Contract: $ 374,182.29 Budget# 423.100.70.594.35164.00 1 Amount: NTE $ 374,182.29 co J Budget # Amount: W G QBudget # Amount: V — — QAre there sufficient funds in the current budget to cover this contract? O Yes O No Z Remarks: LL City Attorney to send a Declaration of Emergency for this Contract. It will be included in the agenda packet for approval by City Council @ 5/16/23 meeting. As this is an emergency situation, contract is being routed for signature approval now. Authorization Level: Mayor w 1. PW Director Q 2. Risk Management/Budget Z 3. City Attorney 4. Consultant/Contractor ❑ 5. Other ✓� 6. City Council Approval Date (if applicable) f717. Mayor ❑ 8. City Clerk For 5/16/23 meeting Packet Pg. 366 10.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract Title: Primary Clarifier #1 Internal Steel Structure Replacement Contract Price: Schedule A: $298,876.00 Bond: $ 8,966.28 Contingency 10% $ 30,784.23 Subtotal: $338,626.51 Sales Tax (10.5%): $ 35,555.78 Total: $374,182.29 Contractor: Rebuild -it Services Group Address: 4188 W Nike Drive, West Jordan, Utah 84088 Phone No: (888) 709-5676; (385) 235-6924; (801) 828-5369 State in which firm was incorporated or where business entity was formed: WI Firm has a physical location in Washington State (yes/no): No THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (the "City") and Rebuild -it Services Group LLC, (the "Contractor") for public works construction work needed on an emergency basis. In consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and agree to the following: Scope Of Work. The Contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment and labor to complete the scope of work set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. The most recent version of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction are the specifications for the project, including the General Requirements, Technical Specifications (Divisions 2 through 9) and Edmonds Standard Details, except as amended, modified, clarified, deleted or expanded in Attachment A. In addition, the following documents, including but not limited to all obligations, plans, specifications, standards and requirements therein, are hereby incorporated in this agreement by reference: N/A. Page 1 Packet Pg. 367 10.1.a Bidder Responsibility. The Contractor shall be qualified pursuant to RCW 39.04.350, and shall submit with this Agreement a completed and signed Statement of Bidder Qualification form, a copy of which is included in Attachment B. Contract Price. The Contractor shall perform the work for the price set forth above. Duration of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by the parties. All work under this Agreement shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) working days from the City's issuance of the Notice to Proceed (NTP). Performance Bond. As required under Chapter 39.08 RCW, the Contractor shall provide the City a performance and payment bond (Attachment C) for the full contract amount plus increases covered by change orders issued by the City under this Agreement. The Contractor may choose to provide alternatives to a performance and payment bond when permitted under RCW 39.08.010. Prevailing Wages. The Contractor shall pay prevailing wages in accordance with Chapter 39.12 RCW. A completed Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages must be submitted to the City for the prime contractor and each subcontractor prior to the first payment. A completed Affidavit of Wages Paid must be submitted to the City for the prime contractor and each subcontractor prior to final payment and/or release of retainage. Labor and Industries Insurance. The Contractor's industrial insurance (workers' compensation) premium status shall be current with the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries prior to commencement of work under this Agreement and shall be maintained current for the duration of the Agreement. Retainage. An amount of five percent (5%) of moneys earned by the Contractor may be retained by the City until all requirements under Chapter 60.28 RCW are completed, including satisfactory submittal of all required Affidavits of Wages Paid and verification of current Labor and Industries industrial insurance premium status. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves the right to withhold payment from the Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of this Agreement, and extra work and materials furnished without the City's written approval. If the Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional costs" means all reasonable costs incurred by the City, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, beyond the maximum contract price under this Agreement. The City further reserves the right to deduct the cost to complete the work, including any additional costs, from any amounts due or to become due to the Contractor. Warranty. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within one year from the date of physical completion. When defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one (1) year from the date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct any defects within seven (7) days of its receipt of Page 2 Packet Pg. 368 10.1.a notice from the City of the defect. If the Contractor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the correction and the Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City to accomplish the correction. Hold Harmless. The Contractor shall perform all work at the Contractor's risk and the Contractor expressly agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, liability, loss, or damage(s), including costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for defense of the same that the City may suffer as a result of claims, liability, loss, or damages to any and all persons or property, costs, or judgments against the City which result from, arise out of, or are in any way connected with the work to be performed by Contractor under this Agreement. This expressly includes any and all claims by employees, subcontractors and assignees of Contractor for which Contractor would have immunity under the Workers Compensation Act for purposes of this indemnification only. The foregoing waiver was mutually negotiated by the parties. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain at its expense during the term of this Agreement general liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage; automobile liability (bodily injury and property insurance) in the minimum amount of $1,000,000; and statutory worker's compensation. The Contractor agrees to furnish the City with a Certificate of Insurance as proof of the appropriate insurance coverage listed above prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. The Contractor shall provide the City with additional insured endorsements naming the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees as additional insured for all relevant policies called for herein. Termination. In addition to any other termination provision in the aforementioned Standard Specifications or applicable law or rule, the City may terminate this Agreement for good cause. "Good cause" shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events: I. The Contractor's refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the work. 2. The Contractor's failure to complete the work within the time specified in this Agreement. 3. The Contractor's failure to make full and prompt payment to subcontractors or for material or labor. 4. The Contractor's failure to comply with any federal, state, or local laws, regulations, rules, or ordinances. 5. The Contractor's filing for bankruptcy or being adjudged bankrupt. If the City terminates this Agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any further monies due under this Agreement until the contracted work is completed. DATE: r , 2023. CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACTOR Page 3 Packet Pg. 369 10.1.a Michael Nelson, Mayor City of Edmonds, WA By: ji (Signature) Printed Name: Terry Reybiun Title: General Manager OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FOR CONTRACTOR: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct: The undersigned hereby certifies that, within the three-year period immediately preceding the bid solicitation date (May 4, 2023), the Contractor is not a "willful" violator, as defined in RCW 49.48.082, or of any provisions of chapters 49.46, 49.48, or 49.52 RCW as determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the Department of Labor and Industries or through a civil judgment entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction. Signed on the day of May 2023 (dI—) (111011th) (year) At West Jordan Utali (city/other location) (state or country) Signature: Printed Nanle and Title: NL Terry Reyburn, General Manager Business Address: Business Telephone: 4188 W Nike Dr, West Jordan, UT 84088 888.709.5676 Page 4 Packet Pg. 370 10.1.a ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF WORK The Contractor shall provide the materials and labor shown below to the City of Edmonds: PROPOSAL DATE: March 28, 2023 PROPOSAL NUMBER: Q123543-C PREPARED FOR: City of Edmonds, WA WWTP 200 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Michael Derrick PH: 425-771-0237 E-Mail: Michael.derrickPedmondswa.gov SCOPE OF WORK: Replace underwater steel components on a 65' dia. Clarifier. Original Serial No. 23883-02 PEPARED BY: Rebuild -it Services Group, LLC. 4188 West Nike Drive West Jordan, Utah 84088 Terry A. Reyburn Main: (888) 709-5676 Direct: (385) 235-6924 Mobile: (801) 828-5369 E-Mail: treyburn@rebuild-it.com Website: rebuild-it.com PROJECT SUMMARY: REPRESENTED BY: Treatment Equipment Company 249 Main Ave, S Suite 107 North Bend, WA Kristin Faulkner Mobile: (425) 691-7101 E-Mail: kristinC@tec-nw.com Rebuild -it Services Group, LLC. (RSG) is pleased to offer the following proposal to replace the underwater steel components for an existing 65' dia. clarifier, serial No. 23883-02. We have also included our professional turn -key labor services. SCOPE OF WORK: The proposal scope of work is based on the inspection of the steel condition of the cage members and column when the drive replacement project was taking place. The cage members are severely corroded, and the column has also some severe corrosion, we are not certain of the inside condition of the center column, however we are assuming it is just as corroded. The underwater steel to be engineered and fabricated to fit through a 4'-8" opening and some items will be assembled inside the tank. Packet Pg. 371 10.1.a 65' DIA. CLARIFIER STEEL UNDERWATER COMPONENTS: • Cage, steel, • Center column • Rake arms, sq, with plow blades and 304 stainless steel squeegees. • Rake arm yoke (2) • Feedwell • Feedwell supports with brackets • 4' radial scum box with scum box supports • Skimming mechanism (1) with skimmer support and blade • Skimming device- RSG stainless steel and aluminum materials. • Corner sweeps (2) • Counterweight, pivot shaft and bearings for corner sweeps. • 8" wheel and cable design • FRP weirs and baffles - corner beam for baffle support • 304SS assembly fasteners • 304SS anchors • Engineering - Including site visit to verify dimensions. Concrete drawings will be needed. • Touch up paint on site. • Freight to job site. SURFACE PREPARATION AND PAINT: Non -submerged steel: Surface preparation of SSPC-SP10 followed by Two (2) coats of Tnemec N69 hi -build epoxy to 4-6 mils DFT. RSG TURN -KEY LABOR SERVICES: • The scope of work for this project is as follows: • Site mobilization and travel time to the job site. • Removal of drive and put aside • Removal of underwater steel components to be cut up and removed out of center opening. • Installation new components • Assembly of some parts inside the tank. • Re -Installation of drive unit. • Level clarifier • Level column and re -grout if needed. • Crane, mats, rigging equipment as needed. • Rake and drive leveling. • Touch up paint only • Prevailing wage • Provide all required confined space entry equipment, hoisting & rigging. • A foreman/safety QC manager will be on site throughout the project. • Work to be performed in one (1) mobilization. • Demobilization of personnel and equipment. Packet Pg. 372 10.1.a • Hole watch assistance • Field service start-up and check out services. This proposal excludes the following items: • Electrical disconnect and reconnect • Permits, fees, and/or stamped engineering documents • Temp facilities including porta-johns and disposal bins. • Concrete demolition and/or repair. Grout work other than mentioned above. • No coating on site- touch up paint only if needed. • Hazardous material abatement, handling and/or disposal. • Draining and cleaning of the tank • Disposing of old debris/parts. • Lubrication for drive unit. • Anchors for center column to be reused • Drive unit to be reused • Electrical controls, mounting brackets, conduit, wiring. • Items not mentioned above PRICING: Pricing to provide underwater steel components listed above and turn -key labor services as described above ......... $263,868.00 SCHEDULE: Submittals: 2-3 weeks. Delivery of steel components: 11-12 weeks Labor services: 6-7 days on site. Check-out services: 1 day Please be sure to reference this quotation number and date on your purchase order. Remit order to: Rebuild -it Services Group, LLC. P.O. Box 1493 West Jordan, Utah 84084 Attention: Candace King, cking@rebuild-it.com PRICING AND PAYMENT TERMS: We appreciate the opportunity to offer our parts & services. Upon receipt of an order, we assure you of our continued interest and service. RSG will provide the best service possible to ensure we exceed your expectations. The actual lead-times are based on the schedule and inventory at the time of ordering as lead times are subject to change according to the current job schedule. This proposal, including all terms and conditions contained herein, shall become part of any resulting contract or purchase order. Changes to any terms and conditions, including but not limited to Packet Pg. 373 10.1.a submittal and shipment days, payment terms, and escalation clause shall be negotiated at order placement, otherwise the proposal terms and conditions contained herein shall apply. Terms: If not outline otherwise in the proposal, terms for the parts and/or equipment are 100% due after shipment or service is completed. Net 30 days from shipment or after service is completed. If the project exceeds $50,000.00 for materials, then the payment terms are 50% up front for engineering and raw materials and 50% due shipment, still net 30 days. The prices are good for 60 days. Sales Tax: No sales taxes are included, use taxes, or duties have been included in our pricing. We are required to collect sales tax for the following states: Utah, California, and Washington. If you are not tax exempt, please remit taxes directly to the governing authorities. Freight: Prices quoted are F.O.B. shipping point with freight prepaid and shipped to a readily accessible location nearest to the jobsite, unless otherwise indicated, unless otherwise noted. All claims for damage or loss in shipment shall be initiated by purchaser. Shipment: Shipping times noted within this proposal are estimated and will be finalized once an order has been received and accepted. Field Service: Prices do not include field service unless noted in the rebuild scope of work description. Additional field service is available at $1,200.00 per day plus expenses. Carbon and Stainless -Steel Escalation: Any material price increase from the proposal date to material procurement that is greater increase from the stated price of more than 5% are herein subject to price escalation. The escalation shall be based on the increase of cost, with our additional profit. Any revisions or changes requested by the customer will be priced on a case -by -case basis. The steel pricing and escalations are based on the material index located at www.steelbb.com. WARRANTY & TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Parts and/or Equipment manufactured or rebuilt and sold by Rebuild -it Services Group, once paid for in full, is backed by the following warranty: For the benefit of the original user, RSG warrants all new parts and equipment sold or rebuilt by RSG, LLC. to be free from defects in material and workmanship, and will replace or repair, F.O.B. its factories or other location designated by it, any part or parts returned to which RSG's examination shall show to have failed under normal use and service by the original user within three (3) years following initial start-up, or three (3) years and six (6) months from shipment to the purchaser, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise mentioned. Such repair or replacement shall be free of charge for all items except for those items such as resin, filter media and the like that are consumable and normally replaced during maintenance, with respect to which, repair or replacement shall be subject to a pro-rata charge based upon RSG's estimate of the percentage of normal service life realized from the part. RSG's obligation under this warranty is conditioned upon its receiving prompt notice of claimed defects, which shall in no event be later than thirty (30) days following expiration of the warranty period, and is limited to repair or replacement as aforesaid. Packet Pg. 374 10.1.a This warranty is expressly made by RSG and accepted by purchaser in lieu of all other warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, whether written, oral, express, implied, or statutory. RSG shall not be liable for normal wear and tear, corrosion, or any contingent, incidental, or consequential damage or expense due to partial or complete inoperability of its equipment for any reason whatsoever. This warranty shall not apply to equipment or parts thereof which have been altered or repaired outside of a RSG factory, or damaged by improper installation, application, or maintenance, or subjected to misuse, abuse, neglect, accident, or incomplete adherence to all manufacturer's requirements, including, but not limited to, Operations & Maintenance Manual guidelines & procedures. When buying a drive or drive rebuild, if the drive control has not been hooked up or disabled, the warranty on the drive is not valid. If the recommended or equivalent oil is not used or correct quantity is not applied, it will void the warranty. It is the customers responsibility to grease and lubricate the drives, if this is not done on a regular basis it will void the warranty. This warranty applies only to equipment made or sold by Rebuild -it Services Group, LLC (RSG). RSG makes no warranty with respect to parts, accessories, or components purchased by the customer from others. The warranties which apply to such items are those offered by their respective manufacturers. CONFIDENTIALITY: All the information in this quotation is confidential and has been prepared foryour use solely in considering services described. Transmission of all or any parts of this information to others or use by you for other purposes is unauthorized without our written consent. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Terms and Conditions appearing in any order based on this proposal which are inconsistent herewith shall not be binding on Rebuild -it Services Group (RSG). The sale and purchase of equipment described herein shall be governed exclusively by the foregoing proposal and the following provisions: 1. SPECIFICATIONS: RSG is furnishing its standard equipment as outlined in the proposal and as will be covered by final approved drawings if applicable. The equipment will, however, meet the general intention of the mechanical specifications of these documents. 2. ITEMS INCLUDED: This proposal includes only the equipment specified herein and does not include erection, installation, accessories, nor associated materials such as controls, piping, etc., unless specifically listed. 3. PRICE AND DELIVERY: All selling prices quoted are subject to change without notice after 30 days from the date of this proposal unless specified otherwise. Unless otherwise stated, all prices are F.O.B. RSG or its suppliers shipping points. All claims for damage, delay or shortage arising from such equipment shall be made by Purchaser directly against the carrier. When shipments are quoted F.O.B. job site or other designation, Purchaser shall inspect the equipment shipped, notifying RSG of any damage or shortage within forty-eight hours of receipt, and failure to so notify RSG shall constitute acceptance by Purchaser, relieving RSG of any liability for shipping damages or shortages. 4. PAYMENTS: All invoices are net 30 days. Delinquencies are subject to a 1.5 percent service charge per month or the maximum permitted by law, whichever is less on all past due accounts. Pro rata payments are due as shipments are made. If shipments are delayed by the Purchaser, invoices shall be sent on the date when RSG is prepared to make shipment and payment shall become due under standard invoicing terms. If the work to be performed hereunder is delayed by the Purchaser, payments shall be based on the purchase price and percentage of completion. Products held for the Purchaser shall be at the risk and expense of the Purchaser. Unless specifically stated otherwise, prices quoted are for equipment only. These terms are independent of and not contingent upon the time and manner in which the Purchaser receives payment from the owner. S. INSTALLATION SUPERVISION: Prices quoted for equipment do not include installation supervision, unless otherwise noted. RSG recommends and will, upon request, make available, RSG's then current rate, an experienced installation supervisor to act as the Purchaser's employee and agent to supervise installation of the equipment. Purchaser shall at its sole expense furnish all necessary labor equipment, and materials needed for installation. RSG will supply the safety devices described in this proposal or shown in RSG's or manufacture represented drawings furnished as part of this order but excepting these, RSG shall not be required to supply or install any safety devices whether required by law or otherwise. The Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RSG from any claims or losses arising due to alleged or actual insufficiency or inadequacy of the safety devices offered or supplied hereunder, whether specified by RSG or Purchaser, and from any damage resulting from the use of the equipment supplied hereunder. Packet Pg. 375 10.1.a 6. ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCTS: Products will be deemed accepted without any claim by Purchaser unless written notice of nonacceptance is received by RSG within 30 days of delivery if shipped F.O.B. point of shipment, or 48 hours of delivery if shipped F.O.B. point of destination. Such written notice shall not be considered received by RSG unless it is accompanied by all freight bills for said shipment, with Purchaser's notations as to damages, shortages and conditions of equipment, containers, and seals. Non -accepted products are subject to the return policy stated below. 7. TAXES: Any federal, state, or local sales, use or other taxes applicable to this transaction, unless specifically included in the price, shall be for Purchaser's account 8. INSURANCE: From date of shipment until the invoice is paid in full, Purchaser agrees to provide and maintain at its expense, but for RSG benefit, adequate insurance including, but not limited to, builders risk insurance on the equipment against any loss of any nature whatsoever. 9. SHIPMENTS: Any shipment of delivery dates recited represent RSG's best estimate but no liability, direct or indirect, is assumed by RSG for failure to ship or deliver on such dates. RSG shall have the right to make partial shipments; and invoices covering the same shall be due and payable by Purchaser in accordance with the payment terms thereof. If Purchaser defaults in any payment when due hereunder, RSG may, without incurring any liability therefore to Purchaser or Purchaser's customers, declare all payments immediately due and payable with maximum legal interest thereon from due date of said payment, and at its option, stop all further work and shipments until all past due payments have been made, and/or require that any further deliveries be paid for prior to shipment. If Purchaser requests postponements of shipments, the purchase price shall be due and payable upon notice from RSG that the equipment is ready for shipment; and thereafter any storage or other charge RSG incurs on account of the equipment shall be for the Purchaser's account. If delivery is specified at a point other than RSG or its supplier's shipping points, and delivery is postponed or prevented by strike, accident embargo, or other cause beyond RSG reasonable control and occurring at a location other than RSG or its supplier's shipping points, RSG assumes no liability in delivery delay. If Purchaser refuses such delivery, RSG may store the equipment at Purchaser's expense. For all purposes of this agreement such tender of delivery or storage shall constitute delivery. 10. SURFACE PREPARATION AND PAINTING: If furnished, shop primer paint is intended to serve only as minimal protective finish. RSG will not be responsible for the condition of primed or finish painted surfaces after equipment leaves its shops. Purchasers are invited to inspect paint in shops for proper preparation and application prior to shipment RSG assumes no responsibility for field surface preparation or touch-up of shipping damage to paint Painting of fasteners and other touch-up to painted surfaces will be by Purchaser's painting contractor after mechanism installation. 11. RETURN OF PRODUCTS: No products may be returned to RSG without RSG's prior written permission. Said permission may be withheld by RSG at its sole discretion. 12. BACK CHARGES: RSG will not approve or accept back charges for labor, materials, or other costs incurred by Purchaser or others in modification, adjustment, service, or repair of RSG furnished materials unless such back charge has been authorized in advance in writing by a RSG employee and a purchase order, or work requisition signed by RSG. 13. INDEMNIFICATION: Purchaser agrees to indemnify RSG from all costs incurred, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney fees, from enforcing any provisions of this contract, including but not limited to breach of contract or costs incurred in collecting monies owed on this contract 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This proposal expresses the entire agreement between the parties hereto superseding any prior understandings and is not subject to modification except by a writing signed by an authorized officer of each party. 15. EXTENDED STORAGE: Extended storage instructions will be part of information provided to shipment If equipment installation and start-up is delayed more than 30 days, the provisions of the storage instructions must be followed to keep WARRANTY in force. 16. LIABILITY: Professional liability insurance, including but not limited to, errors and omissions insurance, is not included. In any event, liability for errors and omissions shall be limited to the lesser of 25,000USD or the value of the particular piece of equipment (not the value of the entire order) supplied by RSG against which a claim is sought L sZ d N a1 R E R C O N O L L O U t� C tv i� L d E W L N w 'L M t� M E L. IL M 04 O N O I V O L C O C) L 'L M C) M E L a N C N E t c� M r r Q Packet Pg. 376 10.1.a ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS TO BE DECLARED RESPONSIBLE BIDDER PURSUANT TO RCW 39.04.350 Name of Contractor: Rebuild -it, a Sentry Equipment company Address: 4188 W Nike Dr, West Jordan, UT 84088 Phone Number: 888.709.5676 Fax Number: Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries Worker's Compensation Account No: 602487545 Washington State Dept. of Licensing Contractor's Registration Number: SENTREC786QP Expiration Date: 12.27.2024 Washington State Uniform Business Identifier No.: 602487545 (1 itv have before UBI number before the contract is aivarded.) Number of years the contractor has been engaged in the construction business under the present firm name above: At the time of bid submittal, did the contractor have a certificate of registration in compliance with Chapter 18.27 RCW? Yes Does the contractor have industrial insurance coverage for its employees working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW? Yes Does the contractor have an employment security department number as required in Title 50 RCW? (provide number): Does the contractor have a state excise tax registration number as required in Title 82 RCW? (provide number): A 10829625 Has the contractor been disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or 39.12.065(3)? No Has the contractor received training on the requirements related to public works and prevailing wage under chapters 39.04 and 39.12 RCW, as required in RCW 39.04.350(1)(f)? Yes Within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the bid solicitation, was the contractor (determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the department of labor and industries or through a civil judgment entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction) to have willfully violated, as defined in RCW 49.48.082, any provision of chapter 49.46, 49.48, or 49.52 RCW? Pursuant to RCW 39.06.020, the contractor further agrees to verify responsibility criteria for each of its subcontractors and to require each of its subcontractors to both verify responsibility criteria for its subcontractors and include instant condition for verification requirement. ►C• Packet Pg. 377 10.1.a STATEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS TO BE DECLARED RESPONSIBLE BIDDER PURSUANT TO RCW 39.04.350 I. At the time of bid submittal, does Contractor owe delinquent taxes to the Washington State Department of Revenue? No If yes, does Contractor have a payment plan approved by the Department of Revenue? 2. Is Contractor currently debarred or suspended by the federal government? No 3. Has Contractor complied with all applicable minority and women's business enterprises, disadvantaged business enterprises, and other similar utilization requirements or goals on federally -funded public works projects with such requirements within three years of the bid submittal deadline? If no, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. 4. Is Contractor listed as an ineligible contractor on the federal GSA Excluded Parties List System set forth by 31 U.S.0 § 6101 and Executive Order 13496? No 5. Apprenticeship Requirements: a) Has Contractor complied with all apprenticeship requirements of ECC 18.00.050 within one year of the bid submittal deadline? If no, were these requirements accepted or waived in writing by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee pursuant to that section for the applicable project(s)? b) Has Contractor complied with all apprenticeship utilization goals on public works projects having such requirements within three years of the bid submittal deadline? If no, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. 6. Has Contractor been convicted of a crime involving bidding on a public works contract within five years of the bid submittal deadline? No 7. Subcontractor Responsibility Requirements: a) Does Contractor's standard subcontract form include the subcontractor responsibility language required by RCW 39.06.020? Packet Pg. 378 10.1.a b) Does Contractor have an established procedure to validate the responsibility of each of its subcontractors? Yes c) Does Contractor's subcontract form include a requirement that each of its subcontractors shall have and document a similar procedure to determine whether the sub -tier subcontractors with which it contracts are also "responsible" subcontractors as defined by RCW 39.06.020? 8. Does Contractor have a record of excessive claims filed against the retainage or payment bonds for public works projects within three years of the bid submittal deadline? No If yes, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. 9. Has Contractor successfully completed projects of a similar size and scope as required by the contract documents for this project? Yes . If yes, please provide information on such project(s) and contact information for each contracting agency. ***See Rebuild -it Experience and Capabilities*** - Also, many jobs done with City of Edmonds and Rebuild -it Most recent - Rebuild Ash Thickener Drive Contract 20220322 Please note: In evaluating whether projects were successfully completed, the City nu y check owner references for previous projects and evahrate the owner's assessment of bidder performance, including but not limited to quality control, safety record, timeliness of performance, use of skilled personnel, management of subcontractors, availability of and use of appropriate equipment, compliance with contract documents, and management of submittals process, change orders and close-out. 10. Has Contractor had a public works contract terminated for cause by a government agency within five (5) years of the bid submittal deadline? No . If yes, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. 11. Has Contractor had judgments entered by a court of law against it within five (5) years of the bid submittal deadline that demonstrate a pattern of failing to meet the terms of contracts? No If yes, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. Packet Pg. 379 10.1.a 12. Does Contractor have a documented pattern of prevailing wage complaints filed against it within five years of the bid submittal deadline that demonstrates a failure to pay workers prevailing wages? No . If yes, please state any extenuating circumstances regarding this issue. Rebuild -it, a Sentry Equipment Company Bidder Con a o trac r) Name By Signature General Manager Title 23 Date Packet Pg. 380 10.1.a ATTACHMENT C KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That whereas the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, has awarded Rebuild -it, a Sentry Equipment Company hereinafter designated as the "Principal", a contract for the construction of the Primary Clarifier 91 Internal Steel Structure Replacement project, which consists of Invitation to Bid, referenced Standard Specifications, Technical Specifications, Plans, Accepted Proposal and Agreement, all as hereto attached and made a part hereof; and whereas, said principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance and payment of said contract. NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and Rebuild -it, a Sentry Equipment company, a corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of UT , and duly authorized to do business in the State of Washington, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF EDMONDS and the State of Washington, for and in behalf of Primary Clarifier #1 Internal Steel Structure Replacement in the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-six dollars ($298,876.00) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly, severally and firmly by those presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the above bonded principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements of any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, at the time and in the manner therein specified, and shall pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors and material men, and all persons who shall supply such person or persons or subcontractors with provisions and supplies for the carrying on of such work, on his or their parts, and shall indemnify and save harmless the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, its officers and agents, and shall further save harmless and indemnify said CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON from any defect or defects in any of the workmanship or materials entering into any part of the work or designated equipment covered by said contract, which shall develop or be discovered within one year after the physical completion of such work, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect, provided that the liability hereunder for defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one year after the physical completion of such work. THE SURETY, for value received, further stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder of the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and the Surety does hereby waive notice of any change, extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the contract or the work or to the specifications. Packet Pg. 381 10.1.a The Surety hereby agrees that modifications and changes may be made in the terms and provisions of the aforesaid contract without notice to the Surety, and any such modifications or changes increasing the total amount to be paid the Principal shall automatically increase the obligation of the Surety on this Performance Bond in a like amount, such increase, however, not to exceed twenty-five percent of the original amount of this bond without the consent of the Surety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed in three counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, this day of _, 20 APPROVED AS TO FORM Office of the City Attorney Rebuild -it, a Sentry Equipment company Principal By Title Terry Reyburn, General Manager TWO WITNESSES ATTEST (if corporation) Surety By — Title Its Address of local office and agent of surety company is log Packet Pg. 382 10.1.a APPENDIX 1 CONTRACT (Appendix A of USDOT 1050.2A Standard Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant/Contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Consultant/Contractor") agrees as follows: I. Compliance with Regulations: The Consultant/Contractor shall comply with the acts and regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21 (49 CFR 21), as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. 2. Nondiscrimination: The Consultant/Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant/Contractor shall not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the Agreement covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR 21. 3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the Consultant/ Contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurement of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Consultant/Contractor of the Consultant's/Contractor's/Vendor's obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP. 4. Information and Reports: The Consultant/Contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the City or the appropriate state or federal agency to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders, and instructions. Where any information required of a Consultant/Contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the Consultant/Contractor shall so certify to the City, or state or federal agency, as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the Consultant's/Contractor's/Vendor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the City shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the appropriate state or federal agency may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: ® Withholding of payments to the Consultant/Contractor under the Agreement until the Consultant/Contractor complies; and/or ® Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The Consultant/Contractor shall include the provisions of the above paragraphs one (1) through five (5) in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The Consultant/Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontractor or procurement as the City or appropriate state or federal agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the Consultant/Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation by a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the Consultant/ Contractor may request that the City enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the City; or may request that the appropriate state agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State of Washington. In addition, the Consultant/Contractor may request the appropriate federal agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. Packet Pg. 383 10.1.a APPENDIX 2 CONTRACT (Appendix E of USDOT 1050.2A Standai-d Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees to comply with the following non-discrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to: Pertinent Non -Discrimination Authorities: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d el seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal -aid programs and projects); • Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex); • Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); • Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal -aid recipients, sub -recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles 11 and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration's Non -Discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898 , Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure the LEP person has meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title 1X of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq). Packet Pg. 384 10.1.b RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FINDING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS AND WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO REPAIR CORROSION DAMAGE TO CERTAIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT. WHEREAS, during the Primary Clarifier #1 drive motor replacement project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), it came to the attention of City staff that certain internal steel structure components of Primary Clarifier #1 are severely corroded and must be replaced immediately; and WHEREAS, this clarifier is typically used in a full time capacity to ensure that we have adequate treatment capacity to meet NPDES permit requirements, therefore these repairs to Primary Clarifier #1 are essential because the corroded structure has already partially collapsed causing the clarifier to be taken out of service and to be used in emergency high flow situations only; and WHEREAS, the City has entered into a contract with Rebuild -It Services Group to replace the internal steel structure of Primary Clarifier #1 and provide related repair services; and WHEREAS, as compliance with the usual competitive bidding requirements would not allow the City to respond as quickly as it needs to respond to make these repairs in a timely manner to ensure proper performance of the WWTP's essential functions; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280 allows municipalities to waive competitive bidding requirements for purchases and public works in order to respond to an emergency; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280 defines emergency as "unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the municipality that either: (a) Present a real, immediate threat to the proper performance of essential functions; or (b) will likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily injury, or loss of life if immediate action is not taken;" and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the corrosion damage to essential WWTP equipment should be considered an emergency for the purposes of RCW 39.04.280; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. EMERGENCY FINDING. The corrosion damage to the internal steel structure of Primary Clarifier #1 constitutes an emergency that justifies the waiver of competitive bidding Packet Pg. 385 10.1.b requirements and entering into a contract with Rebuild -It Services Group for replacement of the corroded internal steel structure without first engaging in a competitive bidding process. RESOLVED this day of May 2023. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 386 10.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Resolution Expressing Support of Prohibiting Public Use of Controlled Substances Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History On the May 9, 2023 the Public Safety, Planning, Human Services and Personnel Committee had an agenda item: 5. Public Drug Use Issue. Draft minutes to this meeting are included in this agenda packet for approval on the consent agenda. In discussion, Council President Neil Tibbott suggested that a resolution would articulate concerns raised and ask the State to provide clear legal remedies to our community. Recommendation Discuss and consider a motion approving this resolution. Narrative See text of proposed resolution. Attachments: Draft Resolution Prohibiting Public Use of Controlled Substance Packet Pg. 387 10.2.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION PROHIBITING PUBLIC USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND OFFERING DIVERSION TREATMENT TO OFFENDERS, AND FURTHER EXPRESSING INTENT TO PROCEED WITH A LOCAL ORDINANCE IN ABSENCE OF STATE ACTION. WHEREAS, in February 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court held in State v. Blake, 197 Wn. 2d 170, that former RCW 69.50.4013, criminalizing the possession of certain controlled substances, unconstitutionally created a strict liability felony offense; and WHEREAS, in May 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Senate Bill 5476, amending the State's Uniform Controlled Act to include a mens rea and requiring that persons subject to arrest for possession of a controlled substance be referred assessment and services in lieu of arrest at least twice before facing misdemeanor criminal charges for the possession of a controlled substance; and WHEREAS, the new RCW 69.50.4013 as established by ESB 5476 is set to expire on July 1, 2023, and the State Legislature has not passed any replacement to date; and WHEREAS, the use of controlled substances without prescription and the supervision of a medical professional can result in physical injury or death to the user; and WHEREAS, the use of a controlled substances can have negative mental and physical health consequences for the user; and WHEREAS, the use of controlled substances without a prescription is positively correlated with criminal behavior; and WHEREAS, the public use of controlled substances adversely impacts public order and endangers the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and visitors of the City of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the governor of Washington State has called a special legislative session starting May 16, 2023, focused on passing a new drug possession law; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council is considering Proposed Ordinance 23-046, criminalizing controlled and counterfeit substances. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Edmonds hereby declares its intent to preserve general welfare by: 1) Providing support of County and State legislative action and budgetary spending on addiction treatment offered in lieu of jailing for public drug use infractions. Packet Pg. 388 10.2.a 2) Providing support for a locally enforceable State law prohibiting public use of a controlled substance. 3) Providing support for Snohomish County's proposed ordinance. 4) Supporting the proposal of a City of Edmonds ordinance prohibiting public drug use and providing addiction treatment diversion in the event a statewide public drug use statute is not enacted. RESOLVED this day of May, 2023. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 389 10.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone (AMD2023-0001) Staff Lead: Rose Haas Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rose Haas Background/History Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regulates uses and development standards in the City's different zoning districts, with Chapter 16.45 covering the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Per ECDC 16.45.010(C), day-care centers in the BN zone are identified as a primary use requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which is a Type III-B land use application that requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The city received an application for a citizen -initiated code amendment (AMD2023-0001) which proposes to: 1) designate day-care centers as a Permitted Primary Use in the BN zone under ECDC 16.45.010(A), which would eliminate the need for the CUP; and 2) Add outdoor play areas associated with day-care centers as an exception in ECDC 16.45.030 to allow the use outside of a completely enclosed building. The application form, applicant's project narrative, and a redline/strike out version of the proposed code amendment are included as Attachments 1-3. Staff introduced the code amendment to the Planning Board on April 12, 2023; minutes to that meeting are included as Attachment 4. Based on the materials submitted and additional analysis provided by staff, board members were generally supportive of the proposal and directed staff to schedule the proposal for a public hearing on May 10, 2023. At the May 10 public hearing, staff provided a brief presentation and the Planning Board took oral testimony from one member of the public, who indicated their support for the proposal. One additional member of the public provided written comments indicating their support (Attachment 5). The video of the May 10 meeting is included as a weblink. Following the staff presentation, public testimony, and a brief discussion period, the Planning Board unanimously (7-0) approved a motion to recommend City Council approval of AMD2023-0001 as shown in StFik gh/underline text in Attachment 3. As a Type V legislative code amendment, the proposal Packet Pg. 390 10.3 is now subject to a City Council public hearing to consider the Planning Board's recommendation and potential adoption by ordinance. Staff Recommendation No action is required. Staff is proposing to introduce the code amendment and provide additional context, and is available to answer any questions about the proposal or the Planning Board's recommendation. The City Council public hearing for the proposal is tentatively scheduled for June 6, 2023. The packet for the public hearing will include a formal recommendation letter from the Planning Board Chair. Narrative The applicant would like to establish a new day-care center at 24200 76th Ave. W to the north of their existing day-care center, which is a permitted primary use in the adjacent Community Business (BC) zone. While the proposed code amendment would benefit the applicant directly, the changes would apply to all BN-zoned properties in Edmonds, which the applicant has listed (page 4) and illustrated (pages 5-11) in Attachment 2. Applicable Codes According to Section ECDC 21.20.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), "day-care center" means "[a] building or portion thereof used for the care of children under the age of 12 located in a facility which accommodates 13 or more children regardless of whether such services are provided for compensation." Per ECDC 16.45.010.C, day-care centers are currently a primary use requiring a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Per ECDC 16.45.030.A, uses in the BN zone must occur within completely enclosed buildings consistent with ECDC 16.45.030.A unless they are specifically identified as excepted, which currently includes uses like off-street parking and loading areas, drive-in businesses, parks and public utilities. Dav-care use in the BN Zone The BN zone is located in neighborhood commercial centers such as Perrinville, Five Corners, and Holmes Corners (212t" and 76t"). Day-care centers were a prohibited use in the BN zone until they were added as a primary use requiring a CUP via Ordinance 3353 in 2001. According to ECDC 16.45.000, The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Per ECDC 16.40, the general purposes of the business and commercial zones are: Packet Pg. 391 10.3 A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other, C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas, D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities, E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. ratinE Restriction in the BN Zone The outdoor operating restrictions have applied since 1980. The following outdoor uses are currently allowed per ECDC 16.45.030.A: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. Current PermittinE Process To establish a day-care center in the BN zone, an applicant needs the following permits from the City (additional permitting is required from the State of Washington consistent with RCW 43.216): 1. Land use permit - Type III-B conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner consistent with ECDC 20.05 2. Building and engineering permits - reviewed, conditioned, approved, and inspections by staff 3. Business license - reviewed, conditioned and approved by staff Analysis of Applicant's Proposal The Planning Board concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the BN zone. Day-care centers provide a vital service to residents of a neighborhood area on a daily basis, which is consistent with ECDC 16.45.00O.A. This is evidenced by the applicant's research which shows that there are six existing day-care centers either within or immediately adjacent to properties within the BN zone. The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial Development Goals and Policies, including Policy Al (Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses) and Policy C2 (Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood). If allowed as a primary permitted use, any proposed day-care center would still have to meet all other existing zoning standards for the BN zone as well as the titles identified in Chapter 20.80.020 for topics such as parking, Packet Pg. 392 10.3 landscaping, traffic, sewer/water/stormwater, critical areas, etc. Compliance with those codes would be verified through a building and engineering permits as they are today. Making day-care centers a primary permitted use would eliminate the extra step of obtaining a conditional use permit where an applicant must submit a land use application, pay the application fee ($3,329.00), and navigate the Hearing Examiner public hearing process which takes approximately four months, and result in more clear and objective use and development standards. Attachments: Attachment 1- Land Use Application AMD2023-0001 Attachment 2 - Applicant Narrative AMD2023-0001 Attachment 3 - Draft BN Code Strikeout AMD2023-0001 Attachment 4 - April 12th Planning Board Minutes Attachment 5 - Written Public Comments May 10 Planning Board Public Hearing Video Packet Pg. 393 10.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS nn BuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone o Applicant c c� First Name Last Name Company Name fn Tony Shapiro A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS L m Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address C N 18105 Sunset Way tonys(@_adshapiro.com v a� L City State Zip Phone Number Extension V Edmonds WA 98026 (425) 778-5400 c� 0 Contractor c 3 Company Name O a Number Street Apartment or Suite Number O CD O M N City State Zip Phone Number Extension C N Q State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address O C O Project Location r Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number O L 24310 76TH AVE W all Y City Zip Code County Parcel Number C EDMONDS 98026 00491100001010 0 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name M N CD N Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Q C O Work Location ++ fC V Q Property Owner Q a� First Name Last Name or Company Name N Rayka I & Stefan I Krumova c Number Street Apartment or Suite Number J 23122 84TH AVE W ' City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98026-8601 E Certification Statement - The applicant states: r r I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and Q authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work y requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. E t ca Date Submitted: 2/13/2023 Submitted By: Tony Shapiro Q Packet Pg. 394 Page 1 of 2 10.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS M BuildingPerrntt.com Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone o Project Contact y Company Name: A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS +; Name: Tony Shapiro Email: tonys@adshapiro.com v Address: 18105 Sunset Way Phone #: (425) 778-5400 N L Edmonds WA 98026 M c� Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Code or Plan Amendments and Interpretations Zoning Code Text Amendment 3 0 Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone Q Description of This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned CD properties outright without requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the O historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN zoned properties). N O N Project Details a Development Type ° c Text Amendment c r ° O L Y r O O O M N O N Q C O cC Q Q N N C cC J C d E t V R r r Q C N E t V cC r� Q Packet Pg. 395 Page 2 of 2 nF r.o. 10.3.a MyBui ld i n gPermit. com Jurisdiction: Edmonds r Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone Application ID: 1268119 E Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje property. I do so certify. Packet Pg. 396 10.3.b U A SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS January 24, 2023 Subject: Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning criteria For Great Kids Academy currently located at: 24310 76'" Avenue W, Edmonds, WA 98026 Site: Property address: 24200 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026 Tax Parcel No: 00491100001008 Snohomish County Contents: Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning Criteria Pages 1-3 Verbal reasoning for modification to zoning code Appendix Al-A8 Zoning Maps of BN zones outlining existing Day Care Centers in BN zones Explanation of Application: This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned properties outright without requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN zoned properties). Additionally, we hope to reclassify Outdoor Recreation Space to be permitted outright within the BN zone's Operating Restrictions, (ECDC 16.45.030). As stated below, we believe these modifications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, while upholding public health, safety, and welfare, as well as being in the best interest of the City of Edmonds by helping to streamline the land use review process and thus limiting some of the uncertainties inherent in construction and/or renovated of daycare facilities within the BN zones. Comp plan and zoning classifications: Comp Plan Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: BN Neighborhood Business 16.40 Business and Commercial Zones: Modify Neighborhood Business, BN zoning criteria to reclassify Day Care Centers as a "Permitted Primary Use" instead of the current listing as a "Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit' as currently stated in 16.45.010 Uses, C Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The existing nine zoned areas are scattered throughout Edmonds which are located immediately adjacent to single family neighborhoods, many of which are comprised of young families seeking to utilize day care centers while many already have existing schools in their proximity. 1. Existing BN Zones: Two of the existing nine BN zoned areas currently have daycare centers within their zone, and four other zones have daycare centers adjacent to or across the street from these zones, for a total of six of the nine, for a total of 67% of the BN zones. Please see the attached zoning maps of these areas. Comprehensive Plan: All nine of the BN zones are well suited to benefit from the placement of daycare centers, which meet the Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies outlined in the initial three paragraphs starting on page 69 of the Comprehensive Plan. AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054 tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com Packet Pg. 397 10.3.b Daycare Centers are a natural use for the smaller and more intimate commercial zones that comprise all BN neighborhoods. Existing Edmonds land uses show a broad acceptance and even the expectation for daycare facilities to be located within or adjacent to BN zones. The requirement for Daycare's to follow the existing Conditional Use approval process burdens applicants, while we contend there are no significant community issues to resolve. The removal of this step will save both time and effort for City Planning Staff, Hearing Examiner, and applicants. Additionally, we are seeking to have outdoor recreation space, (playgrounds), permitted within this zone, which currently is restricted by BN zoning criteria. This criterion requires outside activities be contained solely within the building, thus disabling the ability to comply with Washington State daycare requirements for exterior playgrounds. Please note toddler play areas do not create the noise levels and potential neighborhood annoyance which the typical elementary school playground may generate. 16.45.030 Operating Restrictions: Modify the existing operating restriction to permit daycare playgrounds to be placed outside of an enclosed building, vs. existing criteria which states: "All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building". WAC 110-300-0145 Daycare requirements stipulates in Outdoor early learning program space, that an outdoor play area must be available, (see attached copy of this section). This disables the ability to place daycare centers in NB zones unless there is an approved off site, (and outside of the BN zone), outdoor play space with an approved safe route to access this play space from the Center. Comp Plan Assessment: Community Sustainability Element The proposed code revision will enhance and support the sustainable objective of neighborhood commercial centers by providing local and walkable access from their homes to Daycare business services which mirror existing daycare facilities located throughout Edmonds. This reduces car usage, (and potential air pollution), while enhancing opportunities for families to interact with one another while walking between their homes and the daycare, which is more of a feature with elementary schools than middle or high schools which tend to be located further away from families. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: We believe this proposed revision will fully comply with the comprehensive plan based upon the following Comp Plan criteria. The below listed goals are specifically suited to this site, and land use/building type Commercial Development Goal A: Al Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses: the existing nine BN zoned centers have six Day Care Centers utilizing properties within or immediately adjacent their respective BN zones; please refer to the attached maps. A3 Discourage Strip Commercial areas: Development should be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as well as being economically feasible. Daycare centers provide a necessary and desirable service to their respective neighborhoods as evidenced by the many existing daycare centers situated within other BN zones; of the nine existing BN zones, there are six daycare centers situated within or adjacent to these zones. A4 Provide for convenient and safe access for customers employees and suppliers; enabling BN zoned properties to house daycare centers will permit more residents to access these facilities without having to drive to a centralized shopping area. We believe this close proximity is especially desirable for customers as they commute to . 2 Packet Pg. 398 10.3.b A5 Locate commercial developments to minimize adverse impacts of heavy traffic. as noted, earlier daycare in close proximity to existing housing will relieve the need for car traffic traversing additional streets. Commercial Development Goal B: B2 Encourage mixed -use development to include a variety of uses: the need for daycare centers adjacent to existing housing enhances family life by reducing drive time and encouraging walking while connecting neighborhoods. B8 Private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity: again, enabling and encouraging daycare centers to be adjacent to and part of residential neighborhoods will encourage and enhance interaction amongst families while reducing automobile traffic. Commercial Development Goal C: C2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood: daycare centers inherently are geared to families who tend to prefer Daycare Centers in close proximity to their home. C3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access: All BIN zone properties are on transit routes enabling customers to utilized bus service for taking and picking up their children. The east boundary of the subject parcel is bounded by 76th Ave West, which has a bus line traveling north and south. A east west line is one block to the south of the site on SR 104. Packet Pg. 399 10.3.b U A SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS Summary of BN Zoned Properties Location/N&Ighborho od Area of zone Suroundi-19 Zones Zones with daycares in or adjacent (SF) to BN zone BC, RS-12, PRD-1990-2, R-1997-28, 1 Pemkwllle 272,OW Olympic View Montessori RS-8, R1985-3, 2 Olympic View Dr and Puget Drive 119 ODD RS-12 Edmonds E lementary Bloom Ea!rly Education Grow with Us, adjacent to the 3 * Fibre Corners 293,000 RM-2.4, RSA, PRD, southern boundry of BN zone RS-MP BP R --81 Crow with Us, (across Ed_ Nay) Gen_ Comm, RM-2.4, Sprouts Preschool & Childcare, 4 * Edmonds Way, 15th St SW 226th SW)72 OW S * Edl oodwway High Schaal, 212th & 76tn 309 0150 Ave. Edmonds- oodwway HS (across st. and north of zone) BC, RS-8 Great Kids Academy, adjacent to 6 , 76th Ave W (242"d St SW) 96POW the southern boundry of BN zone RSA BC-EW RFC-1.6 NA RIB-1.6 BC-EW BC P RS-8 NA RS43 NA 7 Edmonds Way 232"d St SW 36 OOD 8 Edmonds Way 236th St SW 12 OOD 9 100th Ave W & Firdale Ave. f238th St SDI 46,000 * Daycares wvh1ch are adjacent to or across the street from BN zones AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054 tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com Al Packet Pg. 400 Existing Comp Plan of area: Fp MoNos ` �qY ■111■1�11 � 11�H-� 11 � 1 Plan Designations Single Family Urbanl Single Family -Resource Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Development Single Family - Urban 1 Single Family - Resource Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor A2 Packet Pg. 401 Perrinville 10.3.b A3 Olympic View Montesso a� 3 0 :i 0 0 0 M N Co N Q O C { L { 4 ' r ' AL Y i0% 5 F Five Corners 10.3.b Grow with Us Preschool (at south edge of BN zone) A5 Edmonds Way ' R B � 141 �Q �Q 15�N � TH ST SW 226� TT SW 0 0 O N O N 0 Edmonds Way, (15th St SW, 226th SW) Grow with Us Preschool (across street) o '��d c ti • titi •� 1 _ f I y . i 1 T t-r 1ti • 1 1 76th Ave W & 212th St SW F 10.3.b I HOW w IL <> T'- 'T SW A7 L m .2 prouts Preschool & Childcare < IL CD 0 Cm CD 0 .0 ['T CD C'4 CCR 2 Cu z p, Cu 0 -;. Packet Pg. 406 1 76th Ave W & 242 St SW 10.3.b Great Kids Academy w F- MMI1M11WNIM110fl'flim 0 R 10.3.c Chapter 16.40 BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES - PURPOSES Sections: 16.40.000 Purposes. 16.40.000 Purposes.O SHARE The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are: A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other; C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities; E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. Chapter 16.45 BN - NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS Sections: 16.45.000 Purposes. 16.45.010 Uses. 16.45.020 Site development standards. 16.45.030 Oaeratina restrictions. 16.45.000 Purposes.4- SHARE The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. 16.45.010 Uses.O SHARE Packet Pg. 408 10.3.c A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Neighborhood -oriented retail stores, retail service uses, excluding uses such as commercial garages, used car lots, taverns, theaters, auditoriums, undertaking establishments and those uses requiring a conditional use permit as listed below; 3. Offices and outpatient clinics, excluding commercial kennels; 4. Dry cleaning stores and laundromats; 5. Small animal hospitals; 6. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020-1 7. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Day-care centers; 9.9-. Local public facilities designated and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. -9-. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. One dwelling unit per lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet; 4. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with any local public facility allowed by this section. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Drive-in businesses; 3. Businesses open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; Packet Pg. 409 10.3.c 4. Convenience stores; 5. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050-1 7. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 8. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033-1 9. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 10. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsection (C)(6) through (10) of this section. [Ord. 3353 § 3, 2001; Ord. 3269 § 1, 1999*; Ord. 3120 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2759 § 1, 1990; Ord. 2660 § 1, 1988; Ord. 2283 § 4, 19821. *Code reviser's note: Ord. 3269 expired August 13, 2000. For provisions on the outdoor display of merchandise, see Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 1 16.45.020 Site development standards. SHARE F-11111111111100r4 Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Height BN None None 20' None' None' 25' 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot area Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R-zoned property. B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. Packet Pg. 410 10.3.c C. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BIN lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. D. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050, and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 3846 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2526 § 5, 1985]. 1 16.45.030 Operating restrictions.O SHARE A. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Outdoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3320 § 2, 2000]. Packet Pg. 411 10.3.d Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of urban development. Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four- story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing. They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017 ordinance was adopted. Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples of how codes are applied in surrounding areas. Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings over 35 feet. Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member Mitchell. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001) Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 412 10.3.d Staff Presentation: Rose Haas, Planner, made the staff presentation and noted that the applicant, Mr. Shapiro, was also present to answer questions if needed. She explained this is a citizen -initiated amendment to allow daycares as a primary permitted use in the BN zone. It would also exempt outdoor recreation space associated with daycare centers from the operating restrictions in the BN zones which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed buildings. This would benefit the applicant directly. It would also apply to all of the other BN zones. The Planning Department is in support of this. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that there would be a public hearing followed by a recommendation to City Council. Staff is hoping to schedule the hearing for May 10. Discussion: Vice Chair Campbell asked about the difference in the process if this were an allowable use. Ms. Haas explained they would not be going through the Conditional Use Land Use process. It would also remove the hearing examiner step. The applicant has identified that this is a use consistent with the intent of the BN zone. Chair Gladstone said she thought the more they could do to make daycare affordable the better. She is looking forward to the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell asked about potential objections to this. Planning Manager Levitan commented that staff didn't have any. Mr. Shapiro commented that if a daycare isn't a natural use in the BN zone, he wasn't sure what is. Hopefully the neighbors would utilize it and could even walk there. He thought close to housing was a natural place for this type of use. The current code does not allow anything outdoors, but the WAC requires outdoor playground areas. Board Member Mitchell commented on the long waiting lists to get into daycare and expressed support for this. Student Representative Distelhorst also thought that this makes sense. Vice Chair Campbell asked about impacts to traffic in the area. Also, are additional precautions necessary for the safety of children because of the traffic. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are general trip generation rates associated with these facilities. There is also a rigorous licensing process though the State where they look at things related to health and safety. Vice Chair Campbell said she was tentatively in favor of this and looked forward to the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell referred to the noise exception for human voices from 10 am to 7 p.m. and suggested that this would need to start earlier in the day. Planning Manager Levitan stated he could look at that. Vice Chair Campbell asked if it would be appropriate to put in maximum headcounts in different types of zones. Planning Manager Levitan replied that they have different definitions. A daycare center such as this is different than a home -based daycare. There are separate licensing processes and requirements. The zoning code generally relies on state regulations. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 413 10.3.e Levitan, David From: ROGER PENCE <rdpence@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:36 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Levitan, David; Clugston, Michael; Shipley, Brad Subject: Public Hearing comment, BN zone code amendment Dear Planning Board, Just a note to convey my full support for the citizen -proposed code amendment to allow day-care centers as a primary permitted use in the BN zone. The reasons to support this change are obvious and numerous, and most have already been discussed by Planning Board. I can add nothing further to that conversation. The need for this code amendment also highlights how out-of-date the BN code is 3 generally, and how it needs a wholesale rewrite at the earliest opportunity, perhaps a a near -term outcome of the new Comprehensive Plan next year. o 0 0 Lastly, in the staff narrative I note a reference to Harmony Corners (212th and 76th). o The more common name is Holmes Corner, named for pioneer farmer Samuel Holmes who made his home there. The city has posted a sign identifying that intersection as a Holmes Corner. 0 0 -Roger Pence- r 0 o Friend of the Planning Board Packet Pg. 414 10.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/16/2023 Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with the Transpo Group for the Transportation Plan Update Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On March 14, 2023, Staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee. The Committee recommended a presentation be made to the City Council on the proposed Multimodal Level of Service. On May 2, 2023, Staff and Transpo Group provided a presentation on Multimodal Level of Service. Staff Recommendation Approve Agreement. Narrative Staff is preparing to begin the update to the City's Transportation Plan in coordination with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City should perform a major update to the Transportation Plan every six to eight years and the last update was completed in 2015. The main objective of the Plan is to identify short-range and long-range strategies that lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while addressing current and future transportation demand and land use. The proposed update includes a significant change since it will establish a new multimodal level of service in place of the previous vehicle level of service at signalized and stop -controlled intersections. Developing a multimodal level of service will require evaluation of different strategies, policies, and programs to build the framework to implement the new level of service standard. The new program will also require administrative guidelines, staff training, and a concurrency ordinance. The scope of services includes the following tasks: 1. Goals/Policies Audit and Existing Conditions Inventory; 2. Multimodal Level of Service Standard and Transportation Concurrency Management Program; 3. Travel Demand Model Update and Forecasted Needs; 4. Transportation Systems Improvement Projects / Programs; 5. Transportation Finance Program and Impact Fee Rate Schedule; 6. Transportation Plan Documentation; and 7. Project Team/Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Support. Packet Pg. 415 10.4 In order to provide concurrency throughout our transportation system (based on GMA requirements), the infrastructure must be kept up with and be adequate to serve the planned growth. Based on Puget Sound Regional Council expectations, the multimodal concurrency and LOS programs (in order to order to meet GMA requirements and VISION 2050's multicounty planning policies) should include the following: 1. Methodology to evaluate LOS for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; 2. Adopt LOS standard(s) based on the methodology; 3. Identification of existing and future deficiencies to maintain LOS; and 4. Measures for addressing existing and future deficiencies - to maintain LOS. More detailed information on each task within the professional services agreement can be found in the attachment. The cost of the Transportation Plan update is funded by the 112 Street Fund and will be coordinated with the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. The 2023 Budget is $170,000. The remaining costs (consultant plus staff time) will be included in the 2024 budget to complete the update. The cost increase from the last Transportation Plan is due to the development and implementation of a new Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), more public outreach, additional Council & Planning Board meetings, and increases in labor cost since 2015. Staff and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and fee for the completion of this work in the amount of $386,085 (including $18,385 in management reserve). Attachments: PSA Transpo - Transportation Plan Update Packet Pg. 416 10.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT MIKE NELSON MAYOR THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Transpo Group USA, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide transportation engineering services with respect to the 2023 Transportation Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has the necessary skills and experience, and desires to provide such services to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above -mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Work that is marked as Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth in Attachment A; provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY- SIX THOUSAND EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($386,085.00). B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. Q Packet Pg. 417 10.4.a C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data, reports, and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations, documentation and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this Agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this Agreement shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Packet Pg. 418 10.4.a 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State c of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within y fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. o 0 No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to a the City. 00 0 The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this M Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties i be limited in any way. a 7. Discrimination prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any M employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other a protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. c 0 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent 0 am contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any M purpose. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 00. N C M 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not a perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written E notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. M a Packet Pg. 419 10.4.a 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, its Appendices 1 & 2, and the Scope of Work and fee schedule attached hereto as Attachment A. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Attachment A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage the Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and the Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Work, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render services, or the City to pay for services rendered, in excess of the Scope of Work in Attachment A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. The Consultant represents that the Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. The Consultant and any persons employed by the Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Work. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he/she/they has/have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she/they has/have not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. Because this Agreement is subject to federal nondiscrimination laws, the Consultant Packet Pg. 420 10.4.a agrees that the provisions of Appendices 1 & 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, apply to this Agreement. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Transpo Group USA, Inc. 12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203 Kirkland, WA 98034 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS day of 2023. CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPO GROUP USA, INC. Michael Nelson, Mayor By: Its: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Pg. 421 10.4.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of 2023, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 422 10.4.a APPENDIX 1 CONTRACT (Appendix A of USDOT 1050.2A Standard Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant/Contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Consultant/Contractor") agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The Consultant/Contractor shall comply with the acts and regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21 (49 CFR 21), as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. Nondiscrimination: The Consultant/Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant/Contractor shall not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the Agreement covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR 21. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the Consultant/ Contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurement of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Consultant/Contractor of the Consultant's/Contractor's obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP. 4. Information and Reports: The Consultant/Contractor shall provide all information and reports ° required by the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its c books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the City or the appropriate state or federal agency to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders, and instructions. Where any information required of a Consultant/Contractor is in i the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the a Consultant/Contractor shall so certify to the City, or state or federal agency, as appropriate, and shall °r set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 13 5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the Consultant's/Contractor's noncompliance with the a nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the City shall impose such contract sanctions as it or IL the appropriate state or federal agency may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: • Withholding of payments to the Consultant/Contractor under the Agreement until the ° Consultant/Contractor complies; and/or • Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. Q. c 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The Consultant/Contractor shall include the provisions of the above M paragraphs one (1) through five (5) in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and ' leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The w Consultant/Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontractor or procurement as the r_ City or appropriate state or federal agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, H including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the Consultant/Contractor becomes involved Q in, or is threatened with, litigation by a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the a Consultant/ Contractor may request that the City enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the City; or may request that the appropriate state agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State of Washington. In addition, the Consultant/Contractor may request the appropriate federal a) z agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. Q Packet Pg. 423 10.4.a APPENDIX 2 CONTRACT (Appendix E of USDOT 1050.2A Standard Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant/Contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Consultant/Contractor") agrees to comply with the following non-discrimination statutes and authorities, including but not limited to: Pertinent Non -Discrimination Authorities: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. L • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal -aid programs and projects); E E • Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex); L Q • Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits w discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); W • Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, is (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); 0 • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and w applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and 0 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or a` activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal -aid recipients, sub -recipients and c contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); c • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of W disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189) as implemented by y Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; a • The Federal Aviation Administration's Non -Discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); W • Executive Order 12898 , Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations a and Low -Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health M or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; a • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency, 0 and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of M limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable 0 steps to ensure the LEP person have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); i • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating I because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq). 0 0. C M L H Q W a c a� E z c� Q Packet Pg. 424 10.4.a Attachment A - Scope of Services Client Name: Project Name Exhibit Dated Scope of Services City of Edmonds Transportation Plan Update March 14, 2023 TG: 1.22355.00 Based on discussions with City staff and an initial review of the 2015 Transportation Plan, Transpo Group has prepared the following scope of services in preparing the 2023 Transportation Plan to support the City's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. The primary study area will be the City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA). The scope of services covers the following seven tasks: 1. Goals/Policies Audit and Existing Conditions Inventory 2. Multimodal Level of Service Standard and Transportation Concurrency Management Program 3. Travel Demand Model Update and Forecasted Needs 4. Transportation Systems Improvement Projects/Programs 5. Transportation Finance Program and Impact Fee Rate Schedule 6. Transportation Plan Documentation 7. Project Team/Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Support The consultant will be supported by City staff in conducting and review of the various work elements. Data needs and support from the City are identified for each task. Transpo will participate in up to 21 meetings throughout the Transportation Plan Update, as described in each task deliverable below. Task 1. Goals/Policies Audit and Existing Conditions Inventory Transpo will review the City's existing transportation goals and policies to identify inconsistencies with PSRC's regional goals and policies, as well as potential area that may change due to the City's updated multimodal level of service standard or updated financing strategies. This policy review will consider equity, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other newly introduced GMA/PSRC policies. This task will also update the existing conditions inventory and analysis documented in the current 2015 Transportation Plan. It will build off of the City's existing data, GIS, and recent and ongoing transportation studies. It will also incorporate results from the expanded and updated traffic operations analyses. It will highlight changes since the last Transportation Plan was adopted. Subtask 1A — Transportation Goals/Policy Audit The consultant will conduct a review of the City's existing transportation policies and goals. We will identify areas that may need revisions or strengthening based on updates since the 2015 Transportation Plan and consistent with PSRC's Vision 2050. Subtask 1 B — Review Existing Studies and Plans The City will provide available transportation and land use studies and plans for use by the consultant. These will include subarea plans, corridor transportation studies/plans, development traffic impact studies, aerial photographs, GIS datasets, and similar materials. The consultant will extract relevant information for the update of the Transportation Plan. We will discuss potential changes since the time the prior studies were conducted. Q Page 1 Packet Pg. 425 10.4.a Subtask 1 C — Assemble and Analyze Traffic Data In order to establish a solid foundation for the Transportation Plan, the consultant will assemble and analyze key transportation system data. The data will be collected from the City of Edmonds, WSDOT, Snohomish County, adjacent jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, Community Transit, Sound Transit, and other sources, as applicable. The focus of this task will be to update the inventory to reflect changes to the transportation system since the prior Transportation Plan was prepared. The following highlights key work elements of this subtask. Roadway and Intersection Inventory The consultant will summarize the existing system of roadways and intersections within the City and its UGA and adjacent study area. Much of the information will be available from existing plans, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), other City data, or aerial data sets. Traffic Volume Data Existing recent traffic counts will be assembled from the City, WSDOT, and Snohomish County, and other adjacent jurisdictions. These will be obtained from prior traffic impact studies and data collection conducted as part of other city, state, or county studies. Additional PM peak hour traffic counts will be collected to supplement the available traffic volume data. The consultant will collect up to 30 peak hour turning movement counts (2-hour periods) at study area intersections for use in the evaluation of traffic trends and travel patterns (PM peak hour counts with several intersections with AM peak hour counts as well). These counts will also include pedestrian and bicycle activity at each intersection which will be assessed as part of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities work component below. Up to 10 additional daily tube counts will also be collected. The count locations will be coordinated with the City. The counts will be conducted by a traffic count vendor. Traffic Operations Analysis Existing traffic operations analysis will be performed to document the current state of the vehicle transportation system. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the consultant will be responsible for coding up to 30 intersections in the model. Using Synchro and Sidra operational models, existing levels of service and delay will be calculated. 3rd Party Transportation Data Analysis (Big Data) An origin -destination study will be conducted at up to 20 districts using Streetlight. This information will provide an understanding of travel patterns for motorized users within the study area and along state highways that will be essential to calibrating the forecast travel demand model. Additionally, data from Replica will be analyzed to highlight existing non -motorized travel patterns and conduct demographic analysis within Edmonds. Collision Data The consultant will assemble and analyze collision data from the City, adjacent jurisdictions, WSDOT and Snohomish County for the City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA). The data will cover the most recent five- year period. The primary types and possible causes of the collisions will be identified. Collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists will also be documented. Rail We will work with the City and the railroad to document the number and type of trains traveling through the City and its UGA that affect traffic operations in the City and its UGA. Transit Service, Ridership, and Transportation Demand Management Programs We will update the inventory of existing transit routes and facilities serving Edmonds. As available, we will document existing transit ridership. We will also document locations and utilization of park -and -ride lots serving the City. Current paratransit services, commute trip reduction, and other rideshare programs will also be summarized. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Q Page 2 Packet Pg. 426 10.4.a Based on the City's existing plans and data and discussions with City staff, the consultant will document changes to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities since the prior Transportation Plan was prepared This will leverage the City's current Walkway and Bicycle Plans. Transportation Improvement Plans The City's current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will be reviewed and summarized. This will provide the baseline for the evaluation of future conditions within the City. The consultant also will document WSDOT, Snohomish County, and other agency improvements that may be applicable for the Transportation Plan Update. City Support: • Geographic Information Systems (GIS) base layers (aerials, streets, speed limits, intersections, sidewalks, functional class, etc.) • Copies of available transportation and land use studies and plans • Copies of recent development traffic impact studies • Traffic signal timing for City signals • City accident data • City TIP and other improvement project descriptions and status Consultant Deliverables • List of suggested goals/policies edits • Updated traffic operations model • Maps and tables summarizing the existing transportation facilities • 3rd Party Data (Streetlight, Replica and/or INRIX) travel data for motorized and non -motorized users Task 2. Multimodal Level of Service Standard and Transportation Concurrency Management Program Transpo will work with the City to develop multimodal level of service (LOS) standards and transportation concurrency management (TCM) program tailored to the City's goals and policies, land use plan, and as well as available staff and data resources. This task will identify and evaluate different options for measuring levels of service, identify a preferred option, and develop implementation tools and guidelines for the preferred strategy. Implementation tools for the multimodal LOS standard are anticipated to be a major focus of this effort. Subtask 2A — Define Program Objectives and Framework Transpo will review and evaluate the City's current LOS standard and concurrency policies. Transpo will then help the City define the primary objectives for the LOS standards and concurrency management program. These primary objectives will help guide the update of both the LOS standards and concurrency management program. Explore Objectives and Strategies We will further explore the City's objectives for the LOS/TCM program and provide several alternative strategies to consider. Alternative LOS/TCM program options will require different levels of staffing and data resources from the City to set up and operate. In defining program objectives, the level of resources that the City has will be an important consideration in the selection of the preferred program. Compare LOS/TCM Programs We will summarizing LOS standards/TCM programs of other cities in Western Washington. This summary will be used to help develop a set of potential LOS standard/TCM program alternatives. These alternatives will be evaluated based on their adherence to the City's broad objectives in the following subtask. Draft Program Framework Based on the City's desired program objectives, a draft framework for the program would be established, but would be refined as part of the subsequent tasks. 0 0. U) c L Q a. c m E z U 0 r Q Page 3 Packet Pg. 427 10.4.a Subtask 2B — Define LOS Standard and Methods Transpo will summarize potential LOS and concurrency program options and identify how the options match the primary objectives, as well as how various performance measures may be used to help meet the overall goals identified in the Transportation Plan. This will result in draft recommendations for refining the LOS standards and concurrency program. LOS Standard Refinements/Revisions Define possible revisions or refinements to the LOS standards to better support the overall objectives of the TCM program. Type of Measurement Tools Define and compare the type of measurement tools and calculation methods that could be used as a basis for the LOS standards. Draft Standards & Methodology Based on the direction from the City, we will develop a draft program for LOS standards and evaluation methodology. The LOS standards will be used as part of the needs assessment to identify transportation projects within the City and UGA. In addition, the LOS standards will be critical in tracking transportation concurrency as discussed below. Planning Board/Council Meetings — Transpo will present at two Planning Board/City Council meetings. It is anticipated that the first meeting would occur at the beginning of LOS update process and the second meeting near the end of the process. Subtask 2C — Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Transpo will update the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to reflect the multimodal LOS standards, typical site development review needs, and right -size to City resources. Subtask 2D — Concurrencv Proaram Based on results of the evaluation, and direction from the City staff completed earlier, Transpo will fully develop the methodology and tools for Edmond's new multimodal transportation concurrency management program. Draft Program Administrative Guidelines The administrative guidelines will outline the concurrency management program and highlight the process by which the City evaluates and monitors concurrency. The program will develop a process to track development projects and process concurrency applications and certificates. Concurrency Ordinance Transpo will develop a transportation concurrency management ordinance based upon the outcomes of the previous tasks. The ordinance will be consistent with City processes and formats and will address the following types of issues: • When is concurrency tested? • How does the applicant obtain concurrency? • Should there be administrative fees for concurrency? • What will the appeal procedures be? Case Study and Staff Training Transpo will use an actual or likely range of development activity (commercial, multi -family and residential) to highlight how the tool would work during the City's development review process and train staff on reviewing and tracking applications, concurrency testing, and issuing concurrency certificates. Transpo will provide documentation, including information on updating the concurrency program in the future. City Support. - Input on current concurrency and development review programs 0 0. U) c R L Q a c m E z U 0 r Q Page 4 Packet Pg. 428 10.4.a • Direction/comment on Level of Service options Consultant Deliverables • Five meetings with the Planning Board and/or City Council to review program options • Technical memorandum documenting preferred LOS/TCM methodology • Draft and Final Administrative Guidelines • Draft and Final Concurrency Ordinance Task 3. Travel Demand Model Update and Forecasted Needs An updated travel demand forecasting model will be developed covering the City and its UGA. The model will be prepared using the Visum software platform. The software will not be purchased for the City; however, the model files will be provided to the City for future use. The model will be based on weekday PM peak hour conditions. The base year for the calibration model will be 2022/23. The forecast year of the model will be 2044, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Development of the model will include the following items: Subtask 3A — Define Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Structure TAZs will be established for the City and its UGA and immediately adjacent areas of unincorporated Snohomish County. The TAZs will be based on a review of the land use element, existing and planned transportation system, and topography and natural features. The City's TAZ structure will be consistent with the TAZs in Snohomish and PSRC models to the extent possible. The TAZ structure will account for growth and development as informed by the City and project team. Subtask 3B — Assemble Existing and Forecast Land Use Land use data for base year and future year will be assembled for each TAZ based on land use provided by the City. The land use data will be stratified into households, employment, and students. The forecasts will be based on the City's Comprehensive Plan land use forecasts. The consultant will provide the land use by TAZ in GIS/spreadsheet format to City staff for review and refinement. Subtask 3C — Develop Base Year Model This task involves developing the base year travel demand model that reflects current conditions. The base year travel demand model will be developed using the Visum software platform. Model Network The consultant will code the existing transportation system serving the City into the Visum software. The network will include the State highway; principal, minor and collector arterials; and selected neighborhood collector and local roads. External Travel Patterns The O-D study conducted in Task 1 will provide a better understanding of the major traffic patterns through the City for use in developing the model. Estimates of through traffic and overall traffic growth at the external connectors will also be based on a review of historical traffic growth and review of the Snohomish County and PSRC travel demand models. Model Calibration and Validation The existing land use data will be input into the model to generate travel demands and travel patterns for the weekday PM peak hour. The model parameters will be adjusted so the model reasonably matches with the traffic count data and observed travel patterns, as well as accepted model validation and reasonableness checks. 0 0. U) c L Q a. c m E z U 0 r Q Page 5 Packet Pg. 429 10.4.a Subtask 3D — Prepare Future Traffic Forecasts The future land use data will be input into the model along with the planned transportation improvements to generate future PM peak hour traffic volumes. The resulting forecasts will be reviewed for reasonableness and adjustments will be made, if needed. This task assumes a future baseline and up to three alternative scenarios. Subtask 3E — Evaluate Future Roadway Systems Using the traffic forecasts, future baseline LOS will be calculated. Similar to the existing conditions summary, future intersection operations will be summarized. The Synchro/Sidra models will be modified to reflect the potential future transportation improvements. The Synchro/Sidra analysis will be used to further refine the improvements and assist in evaluating the overall improvements to the transportation system. The future travel forecasts and operations analysis will be reviewed with City staff to establish a framework for future transportation needs. Transpo will work with the City to identify the major alternative(s) evaluated in the Transportation Plan. Subtask 3F — Evaluate Walkway and Bicycle Systems In addition to the travel demand model, Transpo will use GIS-based analysis tools to conduct a needs assessment to address refinement of Walkway Plan and Bicycle Plan. This may focus on connectivity to key destinations, gap analysis, and overall level of stress. The needs assessment tool and metrics will be tied directly to the updated multimodal LOS standards for Walkway and Bicycle systems. Subtask 3G — Model Documentation Documentation of the travel demand model will focus on summaries of data, model parameters, calibration results, and resulting 2044 forecasts. The documentation will include brief text with associated tables, graphics, and charts. City Support: • GIS base layers for the City (aerial, streets, zoning, parcels, etc.) • Review and refine existing and future land use estimates for the City and its UGA by TAZ Identification of future baseline projects and alternative network scenarios Input on alternative networks Consultant Deliverables • Updated travel demand model and documentation • Tables and graphics summarizing the future needs assessment for motorized and non -motorized users • Preliminary map needed improvements Task 4. Transportation Systems Improvement Projects/Programs This task will focus on defining the City's transportation systems improvement needs. It will build off of the existing conditions, travel forecasts, and operations analyses. Recommendations for long-range transportation improvement projects and programs will be developed. Subtask 4A — Updated Project List Based on the needs assessment, a draft list of transportation improvement projects and programs will be prepared. Improvement projects and programs will also be defined to address user safety, non -motorized travel, transit service, Ferry service, and rail crossings. Non -motorized facility needs will be evaluated based on gaps in the planned systems and to correct situations that contribute to high levels of stress. A phasing/ implementation program will be defined to assist the City in preparing its annual Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. 0 0. U) t= Q a. c m E z U 0 r Q Page 6 Packet Pg. 430 10.4.a The project list will include roadway classification upgrade to new arterials and collector roads to support future growth expected in the City study area. This will help to reserve future roadway corridors. The project list may include roadway widening projects, major intersection/ operation enhancements, and improved facilities for non -motorized transportation. Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates will be prepared based on local area construction cost data provided by the City for all the proposed projects. We will conduct a brief field survey of key projects to identify any environmental or other issues that could affect the cost estimates. We also will account for costs associated with additional right-of-way needs. The resulting planning level cost estimates will provide a reasonable foundation for the financial plan and implementation program. Priority and Timing With a complete project list with associated costs, the projects can be prioritized. Transpo will work with the City and stakeholder committees to develop a list of criteria to establish priorities by mode. This will inform the updates to the Roadway Priority List, Walkway Priority List, and Bicycle Priority List. These lists will include other agency improvements that directly impact Edmonds such as future Sound Transit light rail upgrades scheduled for 2024 and Community Transit and Ferry improvements (based on discussion with WSF) Project List The draft improvement projects and associated information will be summarized in tabular form. The projects will be mapped in GIS to illustrate the locations and relationships of the improvements. Subtask 4B — Traffic Calming Program Review Transpo will review and update the Traffic Calming Program to reflect the latest goals, policies, and needs of City staff. This provides guidance on where traffic calming is appropriate as well as recommended practices and treatments. City Support: • Input on framework plan from current and prior plans • Cost estimating parameters from recent projects and for the Six Year TIP • Review and input on priorities and timing of improvements Consultant Deliverables • Multimodal improvement project list and map • Planning level cost estimates • Updated road standards • Traffic Calming Program review comments Task 5. Transportation Finance Program and Impact Fee Rate Schedule This task of the work program provides an assessment of strategies to fund implementation of the updated Transportation Plan, including updating the City's traffic impact fee program. Subtask 5A — Document Existing Transportation Revenues and Expenditures The City will provide the consultant summaries of revenues and expenditures related to transportation covering the past 3 to 4 years. Revenues will include fuel tax revenues, traffic impact fees, general funds, grants, and other transportation funding. Expenditures will include capital projects, maintenance, operations, administration, and other costs related to its transportation system. The revenues and expenditures will be summarized for use in extrapolating potential future funding levels from existing sources. Estimates of future revenues from these sources will be prepared and reviewed with appropriate City staff. Estimates of future expenditures for maintenance, operations, and administration also will be provided by the City. Q Page 7 Packet Pg. 431 10.4.a Subtask 5B — Update Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule The travel demand model and updated project list/costs provide a basis for updating City's Transportation Impact Fee rates. Work under this task includes: • Review Impact Fee Project List — The eligibility of improvements currently included in the City's TIF will be reviewed to confirm that they should continue to be included in the impact fee program. • Calculate Impact Fee Share — The model will be used to allocate TIF project costs to the impact fee. The model will be used to identify the proportion of growth trips versus existing traffic at each project. Cost allocations also will consider assessment of grants and the cost for resolving existing deficiencies. The product of this task will be a cost allocation spreadsheet. • Update TIF Rate Schedule — The impact fee rate schedule will be updated to reflect the revised project costs and cost allocations. • Update Ordinance — The TIF ordinance will be updated by City staff to reference the revised fee schedule and other changes, as needed. Subtask 5C — Define Funding Strategies and Summarize Financing Program Based on the levels of existing revenues versus expenditures and the likely maximum level of anticipate funding through the TIF, other potential funding options will be evaluated. These will include: • Partnering with state or other agencies to fund improvements • State or federal grants • SEPA mitigation • Frontage improvements • Transportation Benefit District • Business Improvement Districts or Special Assessment Districts The draft financing program will be summarized in tabular form. As required by GMA, the Transportation Element must identify a reassessment strategy if anticipated funding is not sufficient to cover the total costs of the improvement projects and programs. We will define implementation strategies and associated policies to meet that requirement. This may include revisiting level of service standards, growth assumptions, project priorities, phasing of improvements, or other options. We also will assist the City in defining projects that could be effectively partnered with WSDOT and/or Snohomish County. City Support: • Summaries of City's transportation revenues and expenditures for past 3 to 4 years • Direction/review on traffic impact fee program • Review of overall financing program for Transportation Element • Lead in updating City's impact fee ordinance and adoption Consultant Deliverables • Summary of the funding strategies • Finance spreadsheet files Task 6. Draft and Final Transportation Plan Documentation The Transportation Plan will be assembled and will include existing transportation systems, the development and analyses of the travel forecasts, evaluation of the multimodal transportation system projects and programs, LOS and concurrency program refinements, transportation financial analyses and updated impact fee program. It will also address project prioritization methods and supporting information on the project cost estimates. Based on City comments/direction, we will finalize the policies and goals for inclusion in the draft Transportation Plan. Q Page 8 Packet Pg. 432 10.4.a Subtask 6A — Draft Plan Development The preliminary draft Transportation Plan will be provided to City staff for review in electronic format. Based on comments, a draft final Transportation Plan document will be prepared for review by the Planning Board and City Council. Subtask 6B — Final Plan Development Following review and comment by the Planning Board and City Council, the Transportation Plan will be finalized and transmitted to the City. This assumes only editorial type changes and does not provide for significant changes in policy direction, the transportation system plans, or similar larger scale revisions. City Support • Review and input on draft and final Transportation Plan document Consultant Deliverables • Draft/Final City of Edmonds Transportation Plan • Electronic files will be provided of all documents in native format and pdf Task 7. Project Team/Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Support The Community Engagement Program will be used to support the update of the Transportation Plan. It includes four primary subtasks — regular project team meetings, online survey, virtual open house, and planning board/city council meetings. The community engagement program can be coordinated with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan update, where feasible. Subtask 7A — Regular Project Meetings with City Staff (Bi-Weekly Meetings) Transpo will coordinate with City staff on bi-weekly basis throughout the duration of the project. The coordination will address project scope/status, technical and policy direction, budget, schedule, and plan for the Planning Board or City Council meetings, and public open houses. These coordination meetings will be primarily held through virtual online meetings. Subtask 7B — Project Website and Online Survey Transpo will create a project website to describe the transportation plan update process. This website will include a link to an online survey, to be conducted to gather feedback on the public's transportation needs, issues and priorities. The survey would be posted in conjunction with other Comprehensive Plan outreach. To ensure efficiency, questions would be limited, including no more than one open-ended question. Survey results would be analyzed and summarized. City to lead promotion of the survey. Subtask 7C — Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Open Houses Transpo will work with City staff to participate in up to six interdisciplinary neighborhood open houses. These open houses may be either virtual or in -person at the discretion of the City. The format of the open house is still being determined but will likely include a brief overview of the project scope and facilitation of break-out tables based on key topics found in the Comprehensive Plan. Transpo would be expected to provide a short presentation and at least one staff person to assist city staff facilitation of break-out groups. Subtask 7D — Planning Board and City Council Meetings (4 Meetings) Transpo will present to both the Planning Board and City Council to confirm assumptions and methodologies, provide input on alternatives, and review results of the planning process. Up to four meetings will be held at key junctures during the plan update to ensure their input can be utilized in decisions. 0 0. U) 0 Q a. c m E z U 0 r Q Page 9 Packet Pg. 433 10.4.a Subtask 7E — Coordination with newly formed Transportation Committee & Bicycle Group (6 Meetings) Transpo will coordinate with the Transportation Committee (to be created as part of this project) throughout the update of the TMP and LOS Standard & Concurrency Program Update. This committee will provide guidance in the update of the Goals and Policies and help establish the priority Proposed Walkway Projects. It is assumed that Transpo will participate in four meetings with the Committee (these meetings assumed to be virtual). Transpo will also coordinate with the existing Edmonds Bike Group to review the proposed Bicycle Plan. It is assumed that Transpo and City staff will have 2 virtual meetings with the Edmonds Bike Group. City Support: • Host project team meetings via MS Teams • Promote the online survey and project website through existing communication channels • Post materials on City website • Arrange for meetings with: o Planning Board/City Council o Neighborhood Open Houses o Transportation Committee o Edmonds Bicycle Group Consultant Deliverables • Presentation materials and attendance at 4 meetings Council Meetings (in person) • Presentation materials and attendance at up to 6 Neighborhood Open Houses (virtual or in person) • Presentation materials and attendance at 4 Transportation Committee Meetings (virtual) • Presentation materials and attendance at 2 Bicycle Group Meetings (virtual) • Online survey and high-level summary of results 0 0. U) c R L Q a c m E z U 0 r Q Page 10 Packet Pg. 434 10.4.a :ranspogroup `VI - Cost Estimate Worksheet Number / Project Name 1.22355.00 City of Edmonds Transportation Plan Update Pay rates are effective from April 2, 2022 through June 30, 2023, within the ranges shown in the attachment. Only key staff are shown and other staff may work on and charge to the project as needed by the project manager. initial job till cost rat Labor: I 1; 1� 1E 1f 1i 1E 1f 2( 2' 2, 2: 21 2E 2( 2i 2E 2E 3( 3' 31 3: 31 Project Qualify Matleling Planning Project Project GIS/ I Project Manager Control Lead Lead Planne Analyst Engineer Graphics s Admin CLIF Prin L7 Prin L7 Eng L6 Eng L5 Eng L4 An yl L1 Eng L6 PA L4 PA L3 $290 $290 $245 $190 5170 5125 $230 $140 $125 Work Task TASK t - Goals/Policies Audit and Existing Conditions Hours Cost 1A- Transportation Goals/Policy Audit 8 16 16 40 $8,080 1B - Review of Existing Studies and Plans 4 6 12 8 30 $5,340 1C - Assemble and Analyze Traffic Data 2 6 8 16 40 40 112 $16,890 TASK 2 - Multimodal Level of Service Standard and Transportation Concurrency Management Program 2A - Define Program Objectives and Framework 12 16 24 4 56 $12,520 2B - Define LOS Standards and Methods 12 2 24 32 4 74 $16,580 2C- Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 4 4 20 4 32 $6,500 2D - Concurrency Program 16 2 20 60 16 8 16 138 $27,480 2E - City Council Meeting Attendance (5) 20 16 20 16 72 $15,760 TASK 3 - Travel Demand Model Update and Forecast Needs 3A - Define Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Structure 2 24 8 34 $7,460 3B - Assemble Existing and Forecast Land Use 8 24 8 40 $9,200 3C - Develop Base Year Model 2 60 8 70 $16,800 3D - Prepare Future Traffic Forecasts 2 12 14 $3,520 3E - Evaluate Future Roadway Systems 8 8 16 16 16 64 $11,240 3F - Evaluate Walkway and Bicycle Systems 8 24 20 20 16 88 $16,740 3G - Model Documentation 2 16 4 22 $5,060 TASK 4 - Transportation Systems Improvement Projects/Programs 4A - Updated Project List 8 2 16 16 20 24 86 $18,780 4B - Traffic Calming Program Review 4 2 4 4 16 24 54 $10,700 TASK 5 - Transportation Finance Program and Impact Fee Rate Schedule 5A - Document Existing Transportation Revenues and Expenditures 4 16 20 $3,880 5B - Update Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule 4 20 16 40 $8,780 5C - Define Funding Strategies and Summarize Financing Program 8 2 20 30 $6,300 TASK 6 - Drell and Final Transportation Plan Documentation 6A- Draft Plan Development 16 4 8 24 60 24 48 184 $32,240 6B - Final Plan Development 8 2 4 12 20 12 24 82 $14,420 TASK 7 - Project Team/Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Support 7A - Regular Project Meetings with City Staff (Bi- weekly Meetings) 24 12 24 12 8 80 $17,500 7B - Project Website and Online Survey 4 12 16 40 72 $11,040 7C - Neighborhood Open Houses (6x in -person or virtual meetings) 18 24 16 20 78 $14,100 7D - Planning Board (4) and City Council Meetings (2 Meetings) 24 16 36 18 94 $20,240 7E - Coordinate with new Formed Transportation Committee 8 Bicycle Group (6 Meetings) 12 12 8 8 40 $8,240 Total Hours 244 16 330 354 276 192 48 278 8 1746 $70,760 1 $4,640 1 $80,850 1 $67,260 1 $46,920 1 $24,000 1 $11,040 $38,920 $1.000 ' f Total (Cost + 15 percent) $22,253 Subconsultants: I Fir. Cost 1 SubconsultantA 2 SubconsultantB 3 SubconsultantC 4 SubconsultantD 5 SubconsultantE Sub Total $0 r SUBTOTAL 1$367,700 MGMT RESERVE 5% J$18,385 TOTAL ESTIMATE $386,085 $30,310 $78,840 $70,020 $29,480 $18,960 $46,660 $71,120 Packet Pg. 435 Cost Estimate Prepared on: 3/1412023