Loading...
2023-05-23 City Council PacketOp E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council tnl. }nyo REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 23, 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. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. 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 THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING Edmonds City Council Agenda May 23, 2023 Page 1 1. Written Public Comments (0 min) 2. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min) 3. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q1 Accomplishments (0 min) 4. Zone Representation Item Status (0 min) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2023 2. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2023 3. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2023 4. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 5. Approval of claim checks. 6. Approval of LAG agreement with KPG Psomas, Inc. for the Main St Overlay Project 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Action on permanent ordinance for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) (20 min) 2. Letter to State Regarding Environmental Goals for Marsh (20 min) 3. WSDOT/City of Edmonds Memorandum of Understanding (20 min) 4. Adopt ordinance to add compost procurement requirement in compliance with RCW 43.19A.150 (10 min) 5. Resolution Adopting the 2024 Budget Planning Calendar (15 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda May 23, 2023 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Written Public Comments Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of written public comments. Narrative Public comments submitted to the web form for public comments <https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment> between April 27, 2023 and May 17, 2023. Attachments: Public comments May 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments — May 23, 2023 Submitted on 5/16/2023 10:02:26 AM FirstName Ken LastName Reidy CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Audience Comments for May 16, 2023 Regular Meeting Comments The City of Edmonds has two Public Hearings this evening. I've spoken at many Public Hearings over the years. History shows that those who speak at Council Meetings run the risk of being pushed back against and/or labeled by City Councilmembers. The October 12, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes include the following: "Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not get a chance to interview the candidate but had heard nothing but really good things about the person. The Council needs to move forward and frankly there are 42,000 people in Edmonds, not 25 and she would like know what the 42,000 think about the appointment of this gal, not what 25 people think. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not remember the candidate's name because she had not interviewed her but had heard nothing but great stuff about her." The April 25, 2023 City Council Meeting Minutes include the following comments by current Councilmember Jenna Nand: "She preferred if it was not broke, don't not fix it and for council to focus on actual issues facing the City and not fall prey to a very vocal minority that have issues with the city attorney. Of the 43,000 people in Edmonds, 99.99% do not have a problem with Lighthouse or the services they provide." Wow — that is quite the statement. How nice to be able to know what 99.99% of the people want even when they don't tell you. Has Edmonds ever had a vocal majority? Do City Councilmembers have special talents and abilities to know what the silent majority wants? Are City Councilmembers able to somehow determine that the vocal minority is not representative of what the 40,000 plus people in Edmonds want? Are Public Hearings legit, or are they more to fool the people in Edmonds into believing the people can be heard? The Public Hearing for a Street Vacation during the September 20, 2022 City Council meeting provided a great example of why I ask this question. Both public hearing commenters were pushed back upon, and some Councilmembers voted under false understanding of law even though laws were brought to their attention during the Public Hearing. I sometimes fear Council Members are more interested in the City Attorney's hunches or feelings than what people in Edmonds state during Public Hearings. I believe the City Government fails to appreciate the benefit of occasionally admitting wrong — that admitting wrong can show the government is capable of error and that the act of admitting wrong, voluntarily apologizing, and voluntarily making the situation right can build trust. Submitted by Guest on 5/16/2023 10:22:19 AM FirstName Ken LastName Reidy CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Public Hearing on the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program c a� E E 0 U 0 a c m r Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments — May 23, 2023 Comments City Councilmembers - Prior to approving the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, please represent your constituents and ask City Staff to publicly disclose: 1. What is a planned right-of-way? 2. How does such get on the City's Official Street Map? 3. Can the City place public utilities in planned rights -of -way? 4. If a percentage of the required easement width for a street or alley has already been dedicated, why would a planned right-of-way NOT be indicated on the City's Official Street Map? For example, a 7 %' wide easement north of Daley Street exists between both 7th Ave. N and 8th Ave. N as well as between 9th Ave. N and 10th Ave. N. These 7 %2' wide easements were dedicated when the City was originally platted in 1890. Despite having 50% of the required easement width for an alley, the City's Official Street Map fails to disclose a planned right-of-way at either location. Why? 5. Who maintains the Official Street Map and what steps does City Council take to make sure it is accurate and complete? 6. Why do some developers have to deal with Planned Rights -of - way whereas others do not have to? 7. Do some developers simply get lucky because the Official Street Map is incomplete? Former City Attorney W. Scott Snyder has argued in the past that Municipalities have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if they fail to do so. Snyder referenced a 1928 case Lund v. City of Seattle, as well as a 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma. Prior to approving the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, please represent your constituents and ask City Staff to publicly disclose: 8. Does the City have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if the City fails to do so? 9. Does the duty referred to by Snyder apply to unopened rights -of -way? 10. Does the duty referred to by Snyder apply to planned rights -of -way? Please do not approve the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program until City staff provides public answers to all 10 questions asked in this Public Comment for the Public Hearing for the 2024-2029 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. c a� E E 0 U 2 0 a c m r Packet Pg. 5 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Outside Boards and Committee Reports Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be submitted to the Received for Filing portion of the agenda for last meeting of the month. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from the following organizations: Snohomish County Tomorrow Port of Edmonds Edmonds Public Facilities District SNO-COM911 Attachments: _03222023-2067 Snohomish County Tomorrow Minutes Port of Edmonds 4-10-23 pfd-board-meeting-minutes-03-23-2023 SNO911-Board-Agenda-20230518 Packet Pg. 6 Stanwood Darrington Snohomish County Tomorrow A GROWTHMANAGEMENTADVISOR YCOUNCIL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 19 16 17 18 109 21 22 23 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, March 22, 2023 Via Zoom 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Particioatina Jurisdictions/Members Tulalip Arlington Tribes Marysville Granite Falls Everett Lake Stevens Mukilteo Mill Creek Lynnwood Snohomish Edmonds Mountlake Monroe Terrace Sultan Gold Index Noodwav Brier Bothell Bar Bothell Jenne Alderks Darrington Dan Rankin Edmonds Vivian Olson Gold Bar Chuck Lie Granite Falls Matt Hartman Mill Creek Brian Holtclaw Mountlake Terrace Bryan Wahl Mukilteo Louis Harris Snohomish Karen Guzak Snohomish County Council Nate Nehring Snohomish County Council Jared Mead Snohomish County Executive Josh Dugan Citizen Representative Mike Appleby Citizen Representative Michael finch Citizen Representative Linda Hoult Other Attendees/Presenters: Snohomish County PDS Mike McCrary Snohomish County PDS Taylor Twiford Snohomish County PDS Amber Piona Commerce Laura Hodgson Commerce Valerie Smith Commerce Ted Vane as Monroe Deborah Knight Everett City Council Don Schwab EASC Garry Clark Mukilteo City Council Jason Moon Everett Jennifer Gre erson Marysville Peter Cond les CAB Kate Nesse 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Co -Chair Nate Nehring. 2. Introductions/Roll Call Roll call was taken (as listed above). 3. Citizen Comments No comments. 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes (2-23-23) Bryan Wahl moved to approve the minutes of February 23, 2023, as written. Josh Dugan Page 1 of 2 I 6.2.a I u Packet Pg. 7 6.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I� 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 3p9 41 42 43 44 4R 4g7 49 50 51 seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Update Items a. Legislative Updates Legislative updates can be found here. b. Summary of PSRC Board Actions and Activities A summary of the PSRC Board Actions can be found here. 6. Action Items No action items. 7. Briefings, Discussion Items a. Housing Targets Based on Income Levels: Guidance from Commerce Department of Commerce's Laura Hodgson gave a presentation based on how to plan and accommodate housing needs based on income levels. The presentation reviewed the new housing element requirements, housing needs and allocations, and provided guidance on land capacity, adequate provision, and resources. The guidance was developed by two advisory committees with a focus on permanent supportive housing and emergency housing needs. New requirements include Commerce providing projected housing needs to local governments divided into income brackets, permanent housing, and emergency housing needs. The local housing element will need to conduct an inventory and analysis of all needs, identify land capacity, make adequate provisions, and address racially disparate impacts, displacement, exclusion, and displacement risk. Next steps include allocating and accommodating allocations by income bracket, documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability, reviewing racially disparate impacts with communities and reviewing policies, and updating comprehensive plan policies. The presentation can be found here. b. Coordinator's Report Snohomish County PDS Director Mike McCrary, reported on recent activities in CAB, ICC, MAG, and PAC meetings. The report can be found here. The first round of interviews for the SCT Manager position will start tomorrow. 8. Go -Round 9. Next Meeting Date April 26, 2023; 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. by Co -Chair Nate Nehring. All presentations given, discussions held, and actions taken at this meeting are kept on file (via recording) in PDS until six years from December 3111 of this year. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 8 6.2.b 25 APF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 4-10-23 Posted at 13:06h in Uommission Notices by Editor 6 PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING (Via Zoom, Hybrid Meeting) April 10, 2023 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Steve Johnston, President Jim Orvis, Vice President Jay Grant, Secretary Angela Harris David Preston STAFF PRESENT Bob McChesney, Executive Director Tina Drennan, Manager of Finance and Accounting OTHERS PRESENT Jordan Stephens, Port Attorney Neil Tibbott, Edmonds City Council Mike Quinn, Mayor, Town of Woodway CALL TO ORDER President Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. FLAG SALUTE All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. CONSENT AGENDA COMMISSIONER GRANT MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. APPROVAL OF MARCH 27, 2023 MEETING MINUTES, AS AMENDED C. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $965,743.40 COMMISSIONER ORVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. NEW ADMINISTRATION/MAINTENANCE BUILDING UPDATE Mr. McChesney advised that the current schedule anticipates completion and occupancy of the new Administration/Maintenance Building the week of September 3, 2023. The extended time is a result of various change orders, such as the revised Commission/Public Meeting Room space and other City of Edmonds building code requirements. Packet Pg. 9 6.2.b Mr. McChesney reviewed that after a series of onsite visual observations with the Commissioners, the design issue concerning the apparent inadequacy of the Commission meeting space in the original design was discussed at the January 30, 2023 Commission Meeting. By motion and consensus, the Commission approved moving forward with the revised design as recommended. The design revisions for the Commission/Public Meeting space were completed on March 10th and subsequently submitted to the City of Edmonds for a permit revision. They have not yet been approved by the Building Department, but it is expected by next week. Mr. McChesney further reviewed that from a construction perspective, the contractor, SpeeWest, already had framing crews and various other subcontractors working, and the Port did not think it was necessary to stop work pending the City's eventual approval of the design revisions. It wasn't possible to know how long that would take. He said he directed the contractor to continue with the framing in the new layout in order to keep the schedule and avoid billable standby time. Mr. McChesney explained that they haven't yet received Building Department comments and conditions for the requested permit revision, but it appears pretty straight forward and should result in minimal re -work inside the space. However, of particular concern is fire code compliance due to the nature and use of the revised space. In the original plans, the Commission Meeting Room was in compliance because that's what it was, a meeting room of about 700 square feet. The new multipurpose design increases the floor area to create a "Great Room" of about 1,200 square feet. This room can be used for Commission meetings and/or public meeting space. Thus, from a code interpretation, it becomes public assembly space, which triggers a different fire code specification. Put simply, the code requires a one -hour fire rating separation between the floor of the new space and the shop space below. This presents some serious challenges. Unless an exemption or other type of work around is discovered, there are two options for achieving the required fire code separation. One option is to spray fire retardant coating on all of the underfloor surfaces, such as joists, columns and other exposed surface areas. This option is not preferred as it would result in major re -work in the shop area. The second and least costly option is to install a hard-1-hour fire - rated gypsum ceiling to cover the exposed shop ceiling. Mr. McChesney summarized that, once the City Building Department issues the revised permit, they will know the answers. In the absence of knowing what they will be required to do, the contractor has no way to provide a detailed cost. Work progresses on a "force account" basis, pending a final change order proposal. Mr. McChesney advised that another change order will be necessary to revise the storm drainage and grading plan. The original plans approved by the City showed the main storm line running westerly in a connection point across Admiral Way. It turns out this plan conflicted with the City's water line that runs North/South underneath Admiral Way. The below -grade depth of the City's waterline was taken from the City's GIS/engineering records for design purposes, but it wasn't accurate. After the permit was issued and construction started, the survey revealed the proposed storm line was in direct conflict with the City's water line. The Port proposed putting a couple of new bends in the City's line to create a utilidor channel for the Port's storm line, but that solution was summarily rejected by the City. Instead, the City has directed the Port to reroute the storm line parallel to the City's water line to a new location north of the project site. Stormwater isn't pressurized, so it needs gravitational flow. Since the site has already been set to finished grade and the storm pipes have been installed on site, the Port must revise and regrade in order to achieve sufficient gradient fall to move the stormwater to the new location. The cost of this work is still unknown. Packet Pg. 10 6.2.b Mr. McChesney referred to the updated change order schedule that was attached to the Staff Report, noting that it isn't a lot different than what has been talked about previously, pending the two new change orders. He noted that a Project Schedule was also attached to the Staff Report. Again, he said the project is scheduled for completion in early September. Mr. McChesney said that without taking into consideration the additional fire code requirements, the redesign and reconfiguration of the Commission Meeting Space comes in at $253,240. It is important to keep in mind that these are prevailing wage jobs, and about 90% of the additional cost is value-added rather than reconstruction or tearing things out. For example, plumbing comes in at about $19,000, electrical $44,000, mechanical $20,000, and flooring $15,000. These are all design - driven. If the change hadn't been made, the space would have been left unfinished. He acknowledged that the total cost is a big number and said staff would continue to work with the contractor to find opportunities to reduce the cost wherever possible. They will also consider potential work-arounds on the fire code requirement. Commissioner Grant pointed out that there is a plywood material that has a special fire rating of 1 to 2 hours. Perhaps this could be an option instead of gypsum. Mr. McChesney agreed to look into this option. The goal is to avoid having to spray a coating on everything, whether the solution is gypsum board, plywood, or some other material. Commissioner Grant pointed out that the City of Edmonds has already approved the plywood material in construction. Commissioner Orvis asked for further clarification on the permit timeline, and Mr. McChesney said the new permits should be available by the end of next week. The only big problem is the fire rating. Commissioner Orvis said he owes Dick Beselin, the previous owner of the Harbor Square Buildings, an apology. One reason the Port complained about his shoddy building was the utilities were laid at 18 inches instead of 3 feet. Now they find out the City's watermain is laid in at 18 inches, too. It sounds like it was a generalized City problem. Mr. McChesney pointed out that codes have changed significantly from what they were 30 to 40 years ago. The City's existing waterline is an obstruction that must be dealt with. This will require reworking the grade and relaying pipe, but thankfully, they haven't laid any asphalt yet. He doesn't yet know the cost of this work. Commissioner Grant said it is very unfortunate that they needed to change the configuration of the Commission Meeting Space. While he felt their consultants should have noted the problem, the changes will be good for the public. Mr. McChesney said he believes the Commission, staff and public will be happy with the end result, and he anticipates a quality building. Commissioner Orvis commented that it is very easy to be critical when you are doing something you haven't done before, but criticisms can be very valuable if they take the lessons learned into the next big project. For example, they need to seek more solid answers from the City to questions about specifications, since they tend to be a bit fluid. Mr. McChesney pointed out that the project is complicated, and the Port hired competent, professional architects and engineers. It is bothersome when these anomalies come up. Commissioner Johnston said he is disappointed that the City hasn't taken any ownership for mislocating their waterline. Perhaps the Port can use that as leverage to expedite permits in the future. Secondly, he said he has been through a lot of large capital projects, and never do they come out without change orders and changed -condition responses. It happens all the time. Commissioner Orvis added that, when it really comes down to it, accountability falls on the applicant. The person who reviews the permit application is not accountable for anything, so you can't expect to not have things like this happen. Although it is convenient to lay blame on the City, Mr. McChesney pointed Packet Pg. 11 6.2.b out that the Port had a platoon of professional engineers and architects working on the project design, as well. Commissioner Grant asked if the subfloor of the new building is solid concrete, and Mr. McChesney answered affirmatively. Commissioner Grant pointed out that solid cement has a higher fire rating than light gypsum. He suggested the Port seek technical help. Mr. McChesney concurred. He said SpeeWest, the general contractor, has a lot of experience with these situations, and they have raised the question of why the change is necessary given that the floor is concrete and the building is steel. Commissioner Grant said his experience has been that the Building Department tries to help applicants address issues. Mr. McChesney agreed that the Building Department has been very responsive so far, but it is very frustrating. CITY OF EDMONDS REPORT Councilmember Teitzel provided updates on a number of House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) that are circulating through the legislature: • HB 1110 would apply to all single-family zones in communities above 25,000. It has been placed on the Senate's second -reading calendar and can be voted on any day. • HB 1337 would require that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) be allowed in single-family zones, but cities would not be able to count them towards their density targets. The City, along with other cities, voiced concern, and the bill has been changed so that ADUs can count towards density targets. • SB 5433 regards the removal of derelict aquatic structures and administration of aquatic lands. This may affect the Haines Wharf structure in Edmonds, and may allow the Department of Natural Resource (DNR) to acquire the property and mitigate the derelict structure. The City has received a lot of complaints about the old boathouse and piers in this location. • HB 1245 would have required not only upzoning, but also splitting lots. This would have compounded the City's pain. The bill is now dead, but there is interest in bringing it back next year. • A bill related to housing on properties close to transportation corridors passed a second reading. Councilmember Teitzel reported that the Council heard a presentation about the Unocal property two weeks ago. Currently, a Purchase and Sale Agreement is pending with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to purchase the property from the State. Once the sale is finalized, the City of Edmonds will have first right -of -refusal to purchase the property. The agreement will allow the City to maintain its right -of -first refusal and also gain access to the work that Landau Associates did for WSDOT. The Council will continue its discussion on the issue on April 18th. Commissioner Preston requested clarification on legislation that would apply to properties near transportation corridors. Councilmember Teitzel said his interpretation is that it would apply to properties along bus -rapid transit lines, light rail, etc. Commissioner Grant said he re -read the bill today, and it appears they have taken some things out and added other things. For example, significant bus stops would be included. Commissioner Orvis noted that Community Transit has proposed a bus line on SR-104 from the ferry terminal to the light -rail station in Mountlake Terrace, which would run east in the morning and west at night. It doesn't appear that it will have stops on SR-104. With all the apartment buildings being constructed on SR-104, it would be appropriate for the City to request stops along SR-104, as well. Councilmember Teitzel agreed to check into the matter. Commissioner Preston asked if there would be repercussions if the City failed to meet its state - mandated goal for density. Councilmember Teitzel said he would expect the State would withhold Packet Pg. 12 6.2.b grant funding for failing to meet the standards. Commissioner Preston pointed out that the growth targets were developed before the pandemic, and perhaps these numbers won't come to fruition. Councilmember Teitzel said the new numbers haven't been finalized yet. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is considering three options, and the numbers vary depending on which option is selected. However, the targets will represent significant growth. Once again, Commissioner Preston voiced concern that the growth projections are no longer correct. Commissioner Orvis voiced concern that requiring no off-street parking would be a disaster for Edmonds because there aren't enough sidewalks, etc. He asked if there is a reason for eliminating the off-street parking requirement besides forcing people out of their cars and requiring them to use public transit. Councilmember Teitzel pointed out that requiring off-street parking increases the cost of a developed lot because it reserves space that might not otherwise be required. He understands the legislation has been amended to allow some exemptions, depending on local circumstances. However, he felt it would be fairly challenging to qualify. Commissioner Johnston pointed out that "road dieting" is occurring all along the west coast. They want people off the roads and highways, and it is a widespread national movement. Councilmember Teitzel agreed the goal is to get more people to use public transit and reduce car trips. The City will be adding more bike lanes this year for that very purpose. Commissioner Orvis said that, as a former bicycle commuter, he isn't terribly fond of spending huge amounts of money on bike lanes because they fit a very, very narrow group of athletic young people who are going to commute on bicycles given the terrain. Commissioner Johnston pointed out that electric bikes are becoming more popular. Councilmember Teitzel said Sound Transit gave the City a grant of several million dollars to construct bike lanes. The logic is that they would go down 100th Avenue and 9th Avenue after Bowdoin Way and then head east on Highway 99 and over to the light -rail station in Mountlake Terrace. The logic is "If you build it, they will come." Commissioner Grant pointed out that the numbers don't pencil well on the west coast for mass transit. It is hard to get federal funding because they don't have the density. They need to be careful when passing laws to recognize that it is impossible to do mass transit without federal funding. TOWN OF WOODWAY REPORT Woodway Mayor, Mike Quinn, reported that the City is currently in negotiations with Snohomish County, the City of Shoreline and the developer for annexation of the Point Wells property. The Town of Woodway has an agreement with the City of Shoreline and the Olympic View Water and Sewer District that gives the Town the right -of -first -refusal for a period of time that ends in about mid - June. Right now, they are working with the City of Shoreline to understand what they might require from the Town. He received a note today announcing that one of the property owners has put their property up for sale. Currently, the properties are owned by two companies, and there are litigation discussions between the two. At the end of the day, he suspects they will find that the best use for the property will be some kind of fuel transfer. In other words, continue the previous use in some form or fashion. Commissioner Grant clarified that the Point Wells property is located in unincorporated Snohomish County, and as proposed, the Town of Woodway would take jurisdiction but not ownership. Mayor Quinn agreed. He explained that the City covers about 95% of the contiguous footprint of the property down there. He doesn't think it would be in the best interest of Snohomish County or the Town of Woodway to give the property up to King County or the City of Shoreline. He noted that a lot Packet Pg. 13 6.2.b of information is available on the Town's website. There are still issues that must be settled between the Town and Snohomish County to support the annexation. Based on the number of homes, Commissioner Preston asked if a separate roadway would be required from the property up through Woodway. Mayor Quinn answered affirmatively. He said the Town has hired a consultant to conduct an analysis on four potential scenarios, and the results should be available within the next few weeks. One scenario would be to maintain the property as industrial, and another says that an access road through the Town of Woodway would not be required if the property is developed with 24 houses or less. A third scenario would be for 350 mixed -use units, and a fourth scenario would be for up to 800 units. Each of the scenarios has different ramifications, either a road coming up through Woodway or increased traffic through the City of Shoreline. The big issue is the potential clean up. There are a number of surveys regarding the scope and cost of the cleanup, ranging from $50 to $150 million. Commissioner Grant asked about the mid -June expiration date on the agreement between Shoreline, Woodway and the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Mayor Quinn said it was an agreed -upon date between the three parties. As per the agreement, the three parties agreed not to pursue litigation for a period of time and Woodway was given the first crack at annexation because it has the most coverage by land mass around the property. Councilmember Teitzel pointed out that, if Woodway annexes the property and it is developed with a mixed -use project that includes a large number of residential units, it would change the voting dynamics of the Town. The new residents may not value the large lots and way of life that the residents of Woodway have enjoyed over the years. Mayor Quinn acknowledged that it would definitely change the dynamics of the Town, which is a significant concern for the current citizens. He pointed out that the Mayor and Town Council positions are all volunteer. If the Town's population were to significantly increase, they would have to consider a different management structure for government. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. McChesney reported that he and Commissioner Harris will meet with Eric ffitch, Executive Director of the Washington Public Port Association (WPPA), on Thursday for familiarization. Ms. Drennan reported that the Snohomish County Covid Grant process has been going on for almost a year. In April of 2022, the Snohomish County Office of Recovery and Resilience contacted Mr. McChesney to ask if the Port would like to submit for Covid Grant funds. At that point, she reviewed the eligibility requirements and submitted an online application form. She had a number of exchanges with the County in May, as the form did not match with the type of project/grant the Port was asked to submit for. In June, the County requested she calculate the estimated loss of revenues and the cost of premium pay to employees who were working on site during Covid, and this followed with a discussion on the next steps. The County proposed grant funding to hire for the same positions that were unfilled or eliminated due to Covid, and she calculated and submitted for a variety of costs the County said they might reimburse for. These included porta-potties for the public, remote -work capabilities, closure pay, and public -safety costs. At that point, she reviewed the Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Funds Overview of Final Rule, and determined the Port would not be eligible. Although they lost a number of employees during covid and had high unemployment, the losses occurred after the March 3, 2021 date. Packet Pg. 14 6.2.b Ms. Drennan further reported that when the County proposed that they pay employee costs up to $250,000, she asked regarding documentation requirements. As she hadn't heard back, she asked for an update in September. In October, the County provided a contract, but upon reviewing the contract in November, she found that the documentation states the grant was for the operation of rail and/or motor vehicle transfer and terminal facilities, water transfer and terminal facilities, any combination of such transfer and termination facilities, and any other commercial transportation transfer storage and terminal facilities and industrial improvements. She informed the County that the Port doesn't provide these services, as it operates a recreational marina and rents land, buildings and portions of buildings to commercial tenants. At the County's request, she provided new language that better reflects the authorized services of the Port. Ms. Drennan said that in late December, the County said they hadn't received the signed packet needed to make changes, and she responded in January. The County provided a new contract, which included eight documents for a total of 23 pages and also referred to 11 federal documents with a total of 561 pages. She completed the contract review in February and submitted it to the Port Attorney to approve in form only. Next, she submitted the contract to the Commission for approval and forwarded the documentation to Mr. McChesney and the Port Attorney. She also submitted documentation to the County and requested insurance certificates from Enduris. She finally received the signed agreement from the County on April 3rd with a request to submit a quarterly invoice and report by April 15th. She submitted the required information and requested the full amount of $250,000. The Port is now waiting to receive payment. The Commissioners commended Ms. Drennan for working so hard to get through the grant submittal process. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Orvis provided the following legislative report: • The cutoff for legislation headed to the floors of chambers is April 12th. By April 12th, all bills must have passed both houses, and then the legislature will go into secret sessions. • The Senate's operating budget proposed $8 million per biennium for Washington State Tourism, but the House has proposed $9 million. They are currently fighting over $1 million. • The House and Senate budget proposals both include funding for clean -energy permitting and local government eligibility means that ports can apply for the funding. • The House budget includes funding for the implementation of HB 1216, which would streamline the siting of clean energy facilities. • Funding for "Connecting Washington" projects was a big budget item for transportation infrastructure within the State, and there was very strong funding for US-12 in Walla Walla. If they are going to eliminate dams, then US-12 will have to be expanded. The Senate's budget didn't include a proposal for planning or right-of-way funding. • The Gateway Program for the Port of Seattle appears to have enough support in both chambers that it is on schedule for approval. • The Snake River Dams Transportation Alternatives Study has been allocated $5 million. The WPPA is supporting a more robust study of all transportation aspects, which would cost about $10 million. • Both the Senate and House budgets include strong funding for remedial action grants. • Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) funding will go to port districts. • Shore -power electrification continues to be a preferred approach in the Senate's capital budget. Two specific projects would be funded, the Northwest Seaport Alliance and the Port of Everett, Packet Pg. 15 6.2.b which is now one of 11 national ports for defense movement. The WPPA is pushing additional funds for Anacortes, Bremerton and Port Townsend. This seems reasonable, as it is easier to electrify smaller ports because they do mostly barge traffic and it is easier to convert the barges. Electricity to shore power is much more difficult with the big container ships and freighters that you find in Seattle and Everett. • HB 1719 would decommission the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission and turn it into a work group specifically removing the goal of recommending one specific site for a new commercial service airport. • SB 5433 regarding derelict structure removal has received a second reading, and it looks like it may pass. This would likely benefit the City, as mentioned earlier by Councilmember Teitzel. • The derelict vessel legislation has also received a second reading in the House. The measure would streamline the removal of derelict vessels. While it isn't anticipated to help the Port of Edmonds, it may help other ports that have had significant problems with bigger ships. It would allow ports to email vessel owners and significantly decreases the time you must wait for a response before hauling the vessel away. The bill would also allow administrative law judges to supplement three members of the Pollution Control Hearings Board to expedite the process of removing derelict vessels. • SB 5091 would expand incentives for research and development and production and sales of hydrogen fuel cells. It appeared to be dead, but has recently come forward again. It has yet to pass out of the Senate Chamber. • HB 5094 would add advanced nuclear technology, renewable natural gas and green electrolytic hydrogen as guiding principles for the energy strategy. After a lot of push back, the original bill was amended to add the word "renewable." • A bill would make it unlawful to approach with 1,000 yards of resident orcas, and the current law is 300 yards. However, it also says you won't be cited if you are within 400 yards and you disengage your clutch. If you find yourself closer than 1,000 yards to an orca, you must shut down your engine and float until they have moved on. • SHB 1175 would create financial assistance for owners of petroleum underground storage tanks. The bill has support, but he isn't sure how far it has progressed. • SB 5104 would direct the Department of Fish and Wildlife to survey habitat along Puget Sound to create and maintain a baseline of habitat. This bill has a lot of potential ramifications. • An apprenticeship bill is moving forward. As proposed, public works projects over $1 million would be required to achieve 15% apprenticeships. They are considering raising the project limit to $2 million, but ports would like it to be raised to $12 million. The big fear is that small firms don't have enough resources to absorb the 15% apprenticeship requirement. Government agencies would also be required to keep track to make sure that contractors are in compliance. Subcontractors with contracts over $200,000 would be required to achieve 15% apprenticeships, too. • SB 5268 would raise the Small Works Roster limit to $350,000. It was felt that $500,000 was too high. • A bill was recently introduced that would permit tolling on the proposed interstate bridge to Portland. Commissioner Grant said he has been attending Town of Woodway and City of Edmonds Council Meetings, keeping an eye on what they are doing. The Port is still going back and forth with the City of Edmonds on its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance program in the joint parking lot, and they are currently waiting for a response from the City. Mr. McChesney said the fix for the parking lot would be quite simple, and they are encouraging the City's Parks and Public Works Department to take care of the situation now before it explodes into a great big problem. He recalled that the Port had some ADA exposure in 2021 when they moved a few parking spaces to accommodate the recycling facility. It affected a boater whose wife uses a wheelchair, and he turned the Port into the Department of Justice. Commissioner Orvis commented that so much of the existing infrastructure is not ADA compliant. Ms. Drennan responded that the Port ended up paying a fine of $3,000, and the cost of complying with the requirements was significant. The original Packet Pg. 16 6.2.b requirement was that the Port provide documentation on all of the modifications on Port property over the past 30 years. They were fortunately able to talk the Department of Justice out of that requirement. Commissioner Grant advised that, according to an agreement with the State, the jointly owned Fishing Pier parking lot is to go from general open parking (October through April) to restricted parking for the Fishing Pier, Port and Olympic Park use only (May through September). Commissioner Grant said he has been watching SIB 5466, which relates to transportation centers because one center is adjacent to Harbor Square. The bill had a second reading earlier in the day Commissioner Harris reminded the Commissioners that the next Annie Crawley Cleanup Dive is April 16th at 8:00 a.m. As mentioned previously, she reported that she and Commissioner Grant are working on the Port's Mission Statement, with the goal of bringing two suggestions forward this month. Commissioner Harris said she is in discussions with representatives from the Edmonds Marsh Estuary to learn what is top of mind for them with regard to the marsh. She will share what she has learned with Commissioner Johnston, and perhaps they can be invited to a future Environmental Committee meeting to share more broadly. Commissioner Harris said she and Mr. McChesney would meet with Eric ffitch, WPPA Executive Director, on April 13th. She said she has received a very warm welcome from members of the community for her new role as the Port's next Executive Director. She feels very excited and honored. She and Mr. McChesney have started discussions on transition topics, and she is looking forward to onboarding on May 22nd. Commissioner Harris announced that she would be attending the WPPAs Spring Conference in May. Commissioner Preston asked if there was an end in mind for the Snake River Dams Transportation Alternatives Study or if they putting the study together to justify what they already know they want to do. Commissioner Orvis expressed his belief that the issue will end up in congress. A lot of what is being done now is kicking the can, and most of the people studying the issue won't be part of the decision. It will be very difficult to take out the dams, and no one is even talking about flood control. Mr. McChesney pointed out that the Tribes are starting to lean into the issue, which is scary from a political point of view. Commissioner Preston asked if Edmonds is hoping to have the ability to make an offer for the Unocal property, and Councilmember Teitzel answered affirmatively, after it transitions to WSDOT. Commissioner Preston asked how long that would take, and Councilmember Teitzel responded that the cleanup is finished, but they are currently monitoring the site. They expect to have all that done by the end of 2023 and then the City could make an offer. He emphasized that WSDOT is required to get fair market value for the property. Councilmember Teitzel said the property's current zoning would allow mixed -use development, but some councilmembers are adamantly opposed to allowing that to happen. There is a desire to keep it natural. Commissioner Grant said they are still considering a hardtop to cap the pollution. Councilmember Teitzel said there has also been talk about the need to realign the newly -created stream channel to prevent pollution from bubbling up if and when the stream is relocated. Packet Pg. 17 6.2.b Commissioner Preston announced that he would attend the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC) Annual Meeting on April 26th. He would also attend the WPPA Spring Conference in May. Commissioner Johnston said he has been working with Port Attorney Stephens putting together an offer letter and employment agreement for the Port's new Executive Director, Angela Harris. Her first day at the Port will be May 22nd. As a result, they need to start working on an appointment schedule for selecting a new Commissioner on or about May 23rd. He and Port Attorney Stephens have been discussing how this process might work. Commissioner Johnston said he has been trading emails with Eric ffitch, WPPA Executive Director, discussing some future WPPA Committee options. He is currently on a committee he may leave, and he may be interested in joining a few others. He looks forward to meeting with him at the WPPA Spring Conference in Spokane in May. He is also scheduled to meet with the Port's new Environmental Lobbyist, who will be attending the WPPA Spring Conference, as well. He commented that the WPPA is strengthening and is very dedicated to being an effective organization on behalf of ports. Commissioner Johnston announced that he would also attend the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC) Coffee Chat on April 11th. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jay Grant Port Commission Secretary Packet Pg. 18 6.2.c Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors Meeting March 23, 2023 The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board hybrid meeting convened at 7:32 a.m. in the Edmonds Center for the Arts Green Room, 410 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, and via Zoom. EPFD Board Members Present Ray Liaw, President Bill Willcock Vice President Suzy Maloney David Brewster ECA Board Members Present ECA Staff Present Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director Guests Will Chen, City Council Liaison Wayne Grotheer, EPFD Board candidate David Schaefer, President Rick Canning, Secretary/Treasurer 1. Call to Order Board President Liaw called the meeting to order. 2. Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement Board VP Willcock read the Land Acknowledgement Statement and the Equity Statement. 3. Board President's Comments • Agenda Review BOARD MEMBER MALONEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Public Comment - None 5. Consent Agenda • EPFD Board Meeting Minutes: February 23, 2023 • EPFD Disbursement Reports: December 2022, January & February 2023 BOARD VP WILLCOCK MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Old Business • Prior Action Items Review Mr. Mclalwain reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and identified outstanding items (see Action Items below). Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 19 6.2.c • March Staff Report — Questions/Comments? Discussion followed regarding team members involved in the safety committee, possibly shortening the staff report, and support for retaining the current format of the staff report as it provides staff a voice and is important as a legacy document. The board requested changing the format of the rental report so it is easier to read. 7. PFD Board Business • Leadership Transition Update Board President Liaw referred to the draft Executive Director position description prepared by m/Oppenheim that was forwarded to board members. The description will continue to be edited; board members are invited to provide feedback at today's meeting. Suggestions included referencing in the description working with other PFDs and Snohomish County PFD, looking for synergies, and key hires and personnel. Board President Liaw requested members send her any additional feedback. Board members were amenable to the LTT finalizing the ED position description with m/Oppenheim. Board President Liaw reported on m/Oppenheim's search process which included interviews with 61 people such as board members and staff, community members, ECA rental clients, booking agents, etc. The LTT plans to meet with m/Oppenheim today to discuss actions items once the description is finalized. She reviewed the schedule which includes the selection of 4-6 candidates for interviews in May by a team the LTT and three additional members and the selection of a couple finalists that everyone will have an opportunity to meet this summer. External Committee Appointments Board President Liaw explained there are a number of external organizations such as the Association of Washington State PFDs, the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Committee, Boys & Girls Club, etc. that are relevant to the ECA and the EPFD that historically the ED and EPFD president have monitored. With the transition to a new ED, it may be a good time for board member to voluntarily serve as liaisons to external organizations/task forces. Current assignments include: ❖ Leadership Snohomish County — staff member ❖ Chamber board — Liz Dawson has been nominated as a board member ❖ Creative District — Liz Dawson will succeed him, may be opportunity for an ECA board member ❖ Snohomish County PFD — ED and EPFD Board President ❖ Association of Washington State PFDs — EPFD Board Member Brewster Discussion followed regarding support for assigning liaisons; liaisons providing reports to the EPFD Board; why the ED or EPFD president have been liaisons in the past; opportunity to assign someone else as a liaison such as an ECA board member; having representation on the Snohomish County PFD, State PFD Association, 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Committee, and Economic Alliance of Snohomish County Board; strategically assigning liaisons; having representation on other organizations such as the Asian Service Center on Highway 99 and the Multicultural Association of Edmonds; the Association of Washington PFD's lobbyist; prioritizing liaisons to committees/task forces that reflect the ECA/EPFD's interests and strategic focuses; ensuring continuity before Mr. Mclalwain's transition; and highest priority organizations to assign Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 20 6.2.c liaisons (Snohomish County PFD, Boys & Girls Club, 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor Committee and Economic Alliance of Snohomish County). It was agreed the Steering Committee would discuss this further and provide a recommendation to the EPFD Board. • Association of WA State PFDs Board Member Brewster advised the Association has been meeting sporadically via Zoom and needs to be energized in concert with other Snohomish County PFDs. Mr. Mclalwain recommended PFD board level engagement from the four Snohomish County PFDs in the Association as well as involving the Snohomish County PFD. Discussion followed regarding limited attendance at recent Association meetings and ramping up when legislation comes up or the lobbyist notifies of the need for engagement. Board Member Brewster suggested EPFD members receive the Association lobbyist's emails. • Open Board Position Board President Liaw advised Robert White has resigned from the EPFD Board. The vacant position has been advertised and two candidates have applied. Interviews will be held in early April. The interview panel will make a recommendation to the EPFD Board who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council interviews candidates, typically prior to a council meeting, and approves their appointment on their Consent Agenda, possibly in May and the person appointed will begin attending EPFD Board meetings in May. This position requires a letter of recommendation from the Chamber or the Economic Development Commission. Discussion followed regarding Board Member Maloney's term up for renewal in June, the Board's practice of automatically renewing a board member's term instead of asking if they want to continue, the candidate selected to fill the Board Member White's position completing the rest of his term before they are appointed to a full term, board member term limits (two 4-year terms, does not include the remainder of an unfinished term), and being thoughtful in the recruitment of EPFD board members to ensure a broad spectrum of the community. 8. Finance & Operations Update • Finance Update o FY2022 Financials ECA Board Treasurer Rick Canning reported these are the final financials subject to audit. He reviewed the FY2022 Financial Dashboard, a combination of the Income Statement and Balance Sheet. Questions and discussion followed regarding what is included in total assets; history of the building purchase; value of the land, renovations and equipment; City's oversight due to the creation of EPFD and bonds backed by the City; difference between the EPFD and other organizations like the Waterfront Center and Boys & Girls Club; and EPFD bonds that were refinanced in 2021. o January & February 2023 Financials ECA Board Treasurer Canning reviewed the February 2023 Financial Dashboard, highlighting the variance between presented revenue and expense, increased rentals in February, contributions Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 21 6.2.c that include board commitments, payroll and employee benefits, non -operating, and total surplus. He reviewed balance sheet key balances. o Audit Update ECA Board Treasurer Canning advised all the schedules will be completed by next Monday/Tuesday. This year's audit, a financial audit only, will begin on May 1. o Update on Financial Reporting Process ECA Board Treasurer Canning reported Ms. Meagher is finalizing the accounting manager position. The goal is to have the books closed by the 151" of each month. Due to Ms. Meagher's absence, this agenda item was moved to next month. • Human Resources o Hiring Update Mr. Mclalwain reported the operations manager position has been posted, six people applied, four were interviewed by phone, final interviews will be conducted in the next two weeks. Gracelynn Shibayama was promoted rental & events coordinator to event planner. The next step is to hire a grant manager, major gift officer and a rental & events coordinator. He thanked ECA Board Treasurer Canning and the account temp for their assistance. o Job Description for Associate Executive Director See discussion above. o Inclusion & Accessibility Update • Facilities o L&I Accident Prevention Program This agenda item was moved to next month's meeting. o RFQ 2023-01 Building Envelope & Conditions Assessment Update Board President Liaw thanked Board VP Willcock, ECA Board Member Norm Brown and Facilities Coordinator Chris Bryant for screening/scoring the 12 submittals. Board VP Willcock advised the three finalists will be interviewed next week; several amazing firms responded to the RFP. The best qualified candidate will be selected and a price negotiated. 9. Executive Report / Steering Committee • Marketing & Business Development o Ticket Sales Update Mr. Mclalwain reported ticket sales have been healthy with a lot of last minute sales. He anticipated 71-72% of tickets sold by the end of the season which meets the average tickets sold over the ECA's lifespan and third or fourth highest grossing season, likely due to a slight increase in ticket prices and patrons purchasing last minute tickets which means they are paying full price and not purchasing discounted subscription packages. He anticipated revenues would be higher Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 22 6.2.c next season due to adjusting the ticket pricing scale; the average ticket price increase is $10- $15/show. • Programming / Outreach o General Update Mr. Mclalwain reported there are eight secured shows for next season, one for the summer and staff is closing in on another ten shows. • Development o Monthly Snapshot Update on Development Strategy Mr. Mclalwain reported development is on pace with the plan that was established. Emeritus Board Chair Jack Loos hosted a gathering of the Emeritus Board yesterday with 10-11 of the 15 members. He provide an update and Board Chair Loos reiterated how important the Emeritus Board is to the ECA and encouraged them to stay engaged and attend events such as Center Stage, the Gala, etc. Similar events with that board need to be held on a regular basis. Mr. Mclalwain responded to questions regarding hiring a grant writer and a major gift officer, determining what salary is necessary, whether a combined grant writer/major gift officer could be hired, and possibly hiring someone who also works for another organization. Board members requested an update at next month's meeting. • Departmental Budget Goals & KPI's Update Mr. Mclalwain reported he did not attend the last department head meeting, but heard that it included discussion about setting more specific goals, not just financial but related to making a difference and opening new financial streams. Board members requested an update at next month's meeting. Discussion followed regarding whether there were consequences if departments did not meet their goals. 10. New Business Board Member Brewster encouraged board members to attend An Evening with Nancy Pearl on Tuesday, April 4, sponsored by Edmonds Bookshop, Mary Kay Sneeringer, David Brewster, Carol Christiansen, Nancy Fleck, and Jeanne Thorsen. Her books will be available for purchase and signing. 11. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m. Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, April 27, 2023 - 7:30 AM ACTION ITEMS: April EPFD Board meeting agenda items a. Recommended amount to move into Board Designated Fund and rationale b. L&I Accident Prevention Program c. Consider Steering Committee recommendation regarding external committee appointments d. EPFD Board recommendation of new EPFD board member e. Update on Financial Reporting Process Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 23 6.2.c f. Report on hiring/contracting grant writer and major gift officer g. Departmental Budget Goals & KPI's Update 2. Change formatting of rental report in staff report so easier to read. 3. Steering Committee discuss and make recommendation to EPFD Board regarding external committee appointments 4. Ensure EPFD receiving emails from the Association of WA State PFDs' lobbyist 5. Chamber of Commerce endorsement of EPFD board member candidate 6. Request City council interview/appoint recommended EPFD board candidate Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 23, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 24 6.2.d SNOHOMISH COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 91 BOARD MEETING AGENDA May 18, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. r-1777 # Web Conference - Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86000466014?pwd=YWxBbE9HMIJuT2ZXMmtYVU8rSnBkUT09 Meeting ID: 860 0046 6014, Passcode: 195881 or dial +1 253 215 8782 L 0 Physical location: 1121 SE Everett Mall Way, Everett Police Department, South Precinct Please note that most Board members and staff attend the meeting remotely. However, pursuant to RCW 42.30, a physical location is also provided. E E 1. Call to Order 0 A. Roll Call c N B. Announcements i. Retirement Recognition - GIS Coordinator Terry VanOpdorp 0 m 2. Public Comments a� N 3. Approval of Agenda o 4. Consent Agenda co A. Minutes from the April 20, 2023 Regular Board Meeting N B. April 2023 Blanket Voucher & Payroll Approval Form: 0 N i. Checks 1006 - 1007; 2000; and 17299 - 17394, for a total of $2,265,098.16, CU and the a ii. Payroll Direct Deposit, in the amount of $1,260,839.78 L C. Site Lease Extensions o Authorize the SN0911 Executive Director to execute lease extension letters °0 with their landowners under the existing lease terms for the Clearview and Fire Trail tower sites. O z D. Surplus Trailer Authorize staff to send the 2017 PJ Trailer, VIN No. 4P5T82228J1286875 to a James G. Murphy Company auctioneers and deposit the proceeds into the E Operating Fund. r r 5. Old Business Q A. Committee Vacancies: i. Future Facility ii. Finance Committee 6. New Business A. Additional 800 MHz Licenses B. April Fleet Expansion Requests C. Annual Report Approval Packet Pg. 25 6.2.d 7. Reports A. Agency Report B. Future Facility Project Update C. Radio Replacement Project (RRP) D. Police TAC E. Fire TAC 8. Committee Reports A. Finance Committee i. First Quarter Income Statement and Report B. Personnel Committee C. Future Facility Committee (no meeting) D. County EESCS Committee (formerly County E911 Office) E. County ECSF Program Advisory Board 9. Executive Session (if needed) 10. Good of the Order 11. Adjourn - The next meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2023 Packet Pg. 26 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q1 Accomplishments Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Human Services Preparer: Angie Feser Narrative Attached is the 2023 first quarter (Q1) accomplishments of the Parks, Recreation & Human Services (PRHS) Department for the months of January through March. Staff Recommendation This agenda item is for informational purposes, there is no need for a formal action. Attachments: PRHS 2023 Q1 Accomplishments Packet Pg. 27 6.3.a Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department 2023 Quarter 1 Accomplishments January 1 - March 31, 2023 Administration • Updated numerous departmental job descriptions, opened recruitment and have started hiring for more than 25 seasonal and part time staff including parks maintenance, environmental education beach rangers, summer day camp, receptionist, facility monitors, gymnastics and others. Had some Council approved position wage adjustments, which is resulting in better application response. • Promotion of Jesse Curran to Parks Maintenance Manager. • Set Civic Park Grand Opening date of June 23 and began planning for large special event. • Working on possible parks maintenance satellite location due to inability to accommodate the new staff, vehicles and equipment in existing facility. • Developing new master park signage design program and site -specific signage for Civic Park. • Managing Civic Park grant funding program by submitting for reimbursements and tracking for project close-out. • Negotiated and received Council approval of new Ground Lease between City and Boys & Girls Club. • Continuous work on potential land acquisition program including Hurst property including grant funding opportunities. • Waiting for response from City of Lynnwood regarding our proposal for Meadowdale Playfield Interlocal Agreement. • Updated lease payments based on inflation increases for all Frances Anderson Tenants pursuant to their existing lease agreements. • Finalized special event agreements for the Farmers Market and Edmonds SpringFest. Contracts authorized by City Council for 2023. Providing event support for the PAWS walk a new event in 2023. • Established 2023 goals and objectives by division, completed re -cap of 2022 Marketing and Advertising Plan, finalized 2023 Marketing and Advertising Plan. • Developed a matrix to ensure the proper permit and process is utilized for park usage (Park Rental, City Special Event Permit, City Contracted Event, Volunteer Events). • Converted room 123 in the Frances Anderson Center to a conference room to include video capabilities. • Completed outreach to 34 waterfront memorial bench leaseholders; next step will be to open available locations to the waiting list. • All full time parks and recreation employees completed required NIMS training for emergency management and submitted record of completion to risk management. Parks Planning & Projects • The 961h Ave Infiltration was successfully completed in January 2023, Blue Mountain Construction did a great job finishing this project on -time during the cold and wet winter season. • The Mika's Playground sign (for the all-inclusive playground at Civic Park named after Mika) has progressed from initial concept to a defined sign plan and location. Currently the sign design is being finalized for fabrication and installation. Packet Pg. 28 6.3.a • Mathay Ballinger Park —the improvement project commenced with a full legal survey and recording of the survey documents. The next step will be to contact PUD to seek permission to use their easement to allow a trail connection to the Interurban Trail. • On -call contracts were established for Geotechnical, Survey, and Professional Engineering services for park projects. • Yost Park - An initial scoping meeting was held to assess the inclusive playground project at Yost Park. Initial scoping and design are underway. • Johnson Property— completed a successful bid process for refuse removal. Work will commence to removal the large amount of refuse material on May 4, 2023. Following this, next steps include an asbestos survey, asbestos mitigation, and then contracting for the demolition. The permit for demolition is in progress. • Goose deterrent at Civic Park — A quote was secured for goose deterrent services at Civic Park. • Brackett's Landing North —A new outdoor shower and drinking fountain/bottle filler have been ordered and there are plans to hire contractor to install this Spring. Park Maintenance • Put together Civic Field tables and benches and deliver to site. • (1) Brackett's Landing North, (2) Seaview, (3) (4) City Park restroom vandalism repair including painting and replacement of fixtures. Some of these restrooms have been damaged and repaired more than once in Q1. (working for two months to get bids for automatic door locks and cameras) • Installation of a new sink at Hickman Park due to vandalism. • Hazardous Tree removals at Sierra, Maplewood and Pine Ridge Park, and Inner Urban Trail. • 5t" & Dayton Corner Park hardscape installation and landscape design completed and materials ordered. • Waterfront Center Fossil waterfront walkway sign installation. • Flower pole artwork installation titled "Hare". • Bench plaques installed that Brackets Landing South and Seaview Park. • Two Creative district signs installed at 5th and Main Street intersection. • Downtown tree and fountain holiday lights removed and fountain started for this season. • Showers and drinking fountains turned on for the season. • Library beds renovation including removal of all invasive ivy and heavily mulched. • Brackett's Landing North planter bed renovation. • Brackett's Landing South shoreline restoration and planting. • New benches installed at Meadowdale Clubhouse and Seaview Park. • Ongoing reorganization of entire park maintenance operations and significant amount of record purging and archiving following departure of long-term Manager. • Planting of memorial trees at Yost Park. • City Park restoration planting. • Supported the Museum's Winter Markets. Recreation • Designed and published the digital Summer 2023 CRAZE recreation guide. CRAZE went live online on April 3rd • Distributed a postcard mailer advertising the CRAZE Recreation Guide to 20,000+ Edmonds residents. • Social Media Engagement: Packet Pg. 29 6.3.a o Facebook: 1,484 followers, increase of 488 (49%) followers from Q1 2022. o Instagram: 997 followers, increase of 268 (36%) followers from Q1 2022. • Database Marketing: monthly emails have been going out the first week of every month. Emails include registration information, new programs, special events, park updates, etc. o Open Rate: above industry standards (averaging 57%) and click rate (averaging 7%.) o Registration spikes following email distribution which demonstrates engagement and usefulness to customers. • 35% increase in recreation revenue attributed to an increase in recreation and fitness class offerings and registrations. • 70% increase in athletic revenue attributed to returning adult volleyball (29 Coed Teams and 21 Women teams) and adult basketball leagues (12 teams). In addition, pickleball league participation continues to be strong with 62 doubles teams. • $13,500 decrease in facility rentals in the first quarter due to the Plaza Room being used for the pop-up library and unavailable for rentals, in addition the Meadowdale Clubhouse is being used by the Meadowdale preschool and also unavailable for rentals. It is anticipated that these numbers will be made up with an increase in shelter rentals and influx of plaza room rentals beginning in June. 250 shelter rentals scheduled to date 0 QR codes are up at all shelters to allow users to quickly access the rental schedule and place a reservation. • Fitness/Wellness programs: 0 Offered 25 varieties of classes, with 15 instructors in the fall and added Sound Bath, Gentle Yoga and Jazzercise in the winter/spring. • Youth and Adult Recreation: o Offered 61 total programs serving 315 participants. • Gymnastics: o Full staffing continues to be a challenge, but were able to run the Winter session without any cancellations. o Spring session, all classes are full with large waiting lists. Will add more classes if additional staffing can be secured. • Sweetheart Dance: 0 130 people of all ages attended the dance. Kids, parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends came to enjoy the glow themed dance party at the Waterfront Center. Reece Homes sponsored the DJ. The evening included dancing (wonderful DJ), crafts, cookie decorating, snacks and professional photos. • Environmental Education: o Held week-long Amazing Animals Spring Break Nature Camp with a full roster o K-6 education program is nearly fully booked with 83 two-part programs, 17 independent classroom programs, and six forest field trips booked. o Developed revised interpretive signage plan for Brackett's Landing North in collaboration with the local dive community. o Hired one new permanent 0.5 FTE Interpretive Specialist, three seasonal Ranger -Naturalists. Currently training staff for program delivery. o Kicked off planning for annual events including Earth Day, Watershed Fun Fair, and Puget Sound Bird Fest. • Meadowdale Preschool: 0 Maintained full enrollment of 14 participants in the both the morning and afternoon classes. Packet Pg. 30 6.3.a • Day Camps: o Marketed and planned the first Edmonds Spring Break camp. Enrollment was full at 15 participants in grades 2-6. This program was run out of the Frances Anderson Center. o Submitted a grant application with the Hazel Miller Foundation to provide scholarships for the Edmonds Summer Day Camp program. Human Services • Assisted in coordinating and conducting the Point -in -Time count in South Snohomish County. • Coordinated communication with the Day Warming Centers and Cold Weather Shelter ensuring those in need had accurate information and support. • Worked with DSHS to provide a dedicated Benefits Specialist for Edmonds residents in need (3rd Wednesday per month 10 am — Noon). • Developed a free cell phone/tablet program available twice per month at the Neighborhood Office. • Provided ongoing support for distribution of ARPA funding through Household Support Grant program. • Continued support for 5 motel voucher recipients, preparing for Department of Commerce funded program to end in June 2023. • Coordinated resources for people to include a high needs individual requiring support from Edmonds Police, South County Fire Community Paramedics, Adult Protective Services and Compass Health Care Coordinator. • Human Services Program Manager invited by the National Low Income Housing Coalition in Washington DC to be a panelist and participant in the Annual Housing Policy Forum March 2023. • Secured Council approval of a contract to utilize the Snohomish County Diversion Center, Council approved in February 2023. • Participating in Edmonds Emergency Preparedness Committee to ensure vulnerable residents are included in planning efforts. • Ongoing support of Snohomish County's efforts to rehabilitate and open an enhanced shelter in South County at the former America's Best Value Inn on HWY 99, anticipated open late Q4 or early Q1 2024. • Provided Social Services support at each Edmonds Community Court. • Ongoing partnership with City Hall Neighborhood Office to provide outreach from that location to individuals along the HWY 99 corridor. Commissions/Boards • Youth Commission - Nominated the four leadership roles of chair, co-chair, secretary and communications manager and selected year's projects including survey for teens, a teen forum, partner for the annual Earth Day event and to present annual report to city council. • Staff supporting Cemetery Board, Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee and Park & Planning Board. Packet Pg. 31 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Zone Representation Item Status Staff Lead: Councilmember Vivian Olson Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History This item was introduced for the first time at the April 4, 2023 meeting. Minutes Attached. Recommendation N/A Narrative Some councilmembers and members of the public were enthused about the idea, specifically about improving Councilmember presence and engagement in more areas of the City. Those who were more guarded expressed concern about the degree that engagement would be required versus optional, and there were inquiries about budget. In preparation for bringing this item back to council, the City Clerk expressed concerns about the "power of the council" versus "power of the individual councilmember" in regards to this proposal. More research is needed, including examples of other cities who have done this to see how it was implemented. In consultation with the Council President, it was decided that in the short term, Council will move forward the benefit of Council presence and engagement in more areas of the community by adding three council engagement sessions (in three areas of the City) to the budget calendar. The 2024 budget calendar is on the May 23rd agenda under Council Business. Attachments: Pages from 2023-04-04 City Council - Full Minutes-3337 (1) Packet Pg. 32 Councilmember Chen agreed submitting a new application was cumbersome and time consuming for staff and volunteers. However, if the same volunteers are reappointed over and over, that may preclude the opportunity for new volunteers to participate. He suggested the council consider a term limit. Council President Pro Tern Olson commented the narrative did address term limits and some boards/commissions do have term limits and others are silent. As the group discusses a policy, they will keep that in mind as a possibility. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Nand and clarified it has only been under this administration where members have been removed from the planning board which is entirely mayor appointed. If the council make boards and commissions consistent, planning board and ADB members should also be council appointed; the members are currently appointed by the mayor. She could think of only one other instance during the previous administration where the council did not want a planning board member to continue but other than that, there have never been any problems like there have been under this administration. If the intent is to eliminate political targeting, the planning board and ADB should be changed to a council appointment authority. Council President Pro Tern Olson advised a policy or code that takes the council's input into consideration will be presented to council in the future for their review. She observed there was consensus not to have incumbents reapply or to advertise for their position. 2. COUNCILMEMBER ZONE REPRESENTATION ANNUAL ASSIGNMENTS As the author of this agenda memo, Council President Pro Tern Olson said she wished she had used "liaison" instead of "representation" because it would have added clarity. This concept was originally suggested by Darrol Haug. Each year the council president assigns many liaison roles for boards and commissions, outside agencies, etc. In 2019 subareas or districts were created to ensure fair and geographically proportionate citizen representation for the Edmonds Housing Commission; the district map is available in the agenda memo for this item. Seven geographic districts were established for the housing commission and each of the seven councilmembers appointed a member of the commission. Council President Pro Tern Olson assured the proposal was not intended to change the current at -large system for councilmembers. However, it could in the short term deliver benefits that some people have sought related to districting, having someone paying attention to a particular area. In this proposal, the councilmember assigned to the zone would not necessarily live in that zone, but for that one year, the councilmember would have certain responsibilities related to being the liaison to that zone. Everyone in the City of Edmonds is represented by every councilmember and people are free to contact any councilmember for any reason, but the assigned liaison would have responsibility for a certain amount of outreach. Due to the amount of time that has already passed this year, the council may decide not to do as much this year as will be done in subsequent years. The assignment of councilmembers to zones will evolve over time including establishing rules and procedures to better describe the role. Council President Pro Tern Olson continued, for example, during the pandemic, she held five open air budget talks which she organized and hosted with the help of the council's administrative assistant. She attended each of those talks and invited other councilmembers to join her. She acknowledged holding those talks required a lot of time and effort; it would have been much easier if she had only been required to hold one talk. She assured this isn't about creating turfs for councilmembers or preventing councilmember from being involved with all areas of the City because councilmembers are at -large members. The intent is to give each councilmember a specific assignment and the responsibility for engaging with residents in that zone and to bring information back to the council legislative process via the budget, CIP/CFP, etc. She hoped this explanation clarified some of the issues. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 18 Packet Pg. 33 6.4.a Councilmember Nand commented on the commitment of council resources, noting it would require some of the executive assistant's time to schedule town halls, etc. She asked if there was a budget for holding town halls or doing mailers to communicate with constituents in councilmembers' assigned zones. Council President Pro Tern Olson answered no budget has been established; there are some funds for miscellaneous and engaging with the community would be a good use of those funds. Councilmembers can use City facilities for official city business at no cost, such as the Meadowdale Clubhouse. She did not anticipate there would be an excess of expenses. Councilmember Paine commented philosophically she loved the idea, but "assignment" sounded very top down. She liked the idea of having better representation across all districts as it would be better for sharing information in the communities. However, several councilmembers live near each other and do not provide a good geographic representation of the entire City. Obligations are voluntary and if notifications were provided, she wanted them to be in numerous languages which will require some funding. Councilmembers would not be limited to holding town halls/meetings in City facilities and could meet in coffee shops or other places. She recalled when she was on the school board, there were geographic assignments. Council President Pro Tern Olson raised a point of order, requesting the discussion not address districting as that was not the topic of this agenda item. Councilmember Paine commented councilmembers represents everyone and if they are not out in the community, this seems very prescriptive. She loved the idea, but felt councilmembers should be doing it all the time in any case. Councilmember Teitzel commented he liked this idea and it was elegantly simple. He and Councilmember Buckshnis were on the council in 2019 when the 7 zones created which are roughly geographically the same size and have roughly the same number of household in each zone. He liked using "liaison to a zone," finding that an effective term and a way for the people who live in the zones to feel like they have a champion if they want to bring an issue to council. Anyone has complete freedom to contact any councilmember, but he envisioned residents would find comfort in having someone who would dig deeper and air their issues. He expressed his full support for this proposal. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the idea, but did not see it happening as beautifully as Council President Pro Tern Olson envisioned. She anticipated a lot of turf wars, recalling in 2020 then- Councilmember K. Johnson was told not to come to a committee because she knew too much. This is a slippery slope as all councilmembers should represent everyone. She liked the idea of a smaller group, but she and other councilmembers would do what they needed to do. Her issue was attempting to put everyone into a box; she did three townhalls throughout the City and planned to do more this year because the budget and audit caused a lot of concern and she wanted to ensure citizens have a voice. She feared someone would get mad if she went into their district when in reality she knows a lot about municipal finance and people like to discuss it. She feared having liaisons or districts would cause internal conflicts although that may not happen with this council. She will continue to represent everyone as councilmembers can talk to anyone anywhere and she hoped there would not be any turf wars. Councilmember Chen said he liked the concept of districting so councilmembers could spend more time getting to know an area, the businesses, residents, roads, and bring concerns/problems to staff and the council. This may be a good start and lead to districting long term. If a councilmember is truly responsible for a zone, there needs to be some meat on it, there need to be some consequences. If a councilmember does not represent a district, that zone will ultimately not vote for them. It is not the topic of tonight's discussion, but in the long run it will likely require the involvement of the city attorney to look into districting. Council President Pro Tern Olson cautioned councilmembers to stay on topic. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 19 Packet Pg. 34 6.4.a Councilmember Nand said she presently has office hours every Thursday at 4 pm in city hall which requires residents to come to city hall which is not very accessible. She was pleased by this concept and did not envision any problems arising if a councilmember joined another councilmember's town hall. She was interested in expanding outside the municipal bubble downtown into the neighborhoods so instead of citizens coming to council, councilmembers would go to them. To Councilmember Buckshnis' point, some councilmembers are very proactive and already doing outreach, but this would institutionalize that and create a framework for all councilmembers conducting outreach activities. . Councilmember Teitzel said nothing about this proposal precludes looking into alternative forms of government longer term. He supported forming a task force to look into things like districting as well as a changing to a weak mayor -strong council form of government, code city versus charter city, etc. With regard to assignments being top down or having mandatory activities associated with liaisons, Council President Pro Tem Olson commented when councilmembers are assigned as liaisons to boards, commissions, committees, etc., they are expected to attend monthly meetings. If this was adopted as a policy, there should be some regular expectation such as holding a town hall meeting in the zone prior to the budget. That can be decided or finetuned at a future budget retreat, but it would be great to at least hold one town hall in each zone to get things started this year. She will bring this back as an agenda item. Many assignments are top down such as the council president making liaison assignments; this would simply be another liaison assignment with some expectations. Councilmember Buckshnis said some councilmembers may be introverted and not want to hold a town hall meeting. She is an extrovert and loves town hall meetings and has learned a lot from them. She did support adopting a policy that requires every councilmember to hold a town hall meetings if that was not something they wanted to do. Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' comment. Having councilmembers serve as the liaison to a particular zone is not the same as liaisons to boards and commissions. As the city attorney said, councilmembers do not have any authority over other elected officials, each elected official is separately elected and they are peers, something that is not being considered in this discussion and the reason she phrased it as being top down. It is a good idea and councilmembers should already be doing this as they represent everyone. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Edmonds Waterfront annual breakfast was great; it was fun to see everyone and a lot of money raised. She wished a Happy Birthday to former Councilmember Jack Bevin who turned 100 on Sunday and is sharp as a whip. She reported councilmembers will receive a book from Port Commissioner Dave Preston written by Todd Meyers, "Time to Think Small: How Nimble Environmental Technologies Can Solve the Planet's Biggest Problems." She knew Todd's dad Hank who used to be a councilmember in Redmond when they were on WRIA 8 together. Everyone needs to think about the environment. The City's Climate Action Plan was focused on GHG, but attention needs to be given to other things. Councilmember Nand referred to her article in My Edmonds News a few days ago about when to rescue baby cottontails. Every year people find nests with baby rabbits and thinking they are in distress, try to rescue them, not realizing they are probably condemning them to death because the mama is away from the nest for a reason and does not want to lead predators back to the nest. If the babies are removed from the nest and taken to a wildlife rescue, cottontails are considered an invasive species and are likely to be euthanized as hand -rearing them is extremely difficult. If people enjoy having cottontails in their yard, she suggested creating a predator -proof fence around the nest to keep pets and larger animals away until Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 20 Packet Pg. 35 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 2, 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: E050223 Packet Pg. 36 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES May 2, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer David Levitan, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4- 0 Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip L Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We a a respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection a with the land and water." cY, N N O 3. ROLL CALL c w City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. c m E 4. PRESENTATIONS cc 1. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE AS PART TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Q City Engineer Rob English introduced Chris Comeau and Patrick Lynch, Transpo Group. This presentation was requested by the PPW Committee during their March meeting. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained staff will soon begin work on the City's transportation plan update in coordination with the comprehensive plan update. Work on the plan will begin in spring 2023 and be completed by spring 2024. Under the GMA, a major update to the plan should occur every 6- 8 years; the last update was in 2015, approximately 8-9 years ago so it is definitely time to update the plan. Objectives for the plan include identifying short and long range strategies to lead development of a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 37 7.1.a multimodal transportation system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while addressing current and future transportation demand and land use. Mr. Hauss continued, in the 2015 plan, the level of service (LOS) was based only on vehicular trips at signalized and stop -controlled intersections and that was used to determine traffic impact fees. The 2015 plan referred to the multimodal LOS for pedestrian, bicycle and transit, but it was not used in calculating traffic impact fees. As part of the update, the intent is to consider multimodal level of service (MMLOS). At the March PPW Committee meeting when the professional services agreement with Transpo was presented, the committee requested a presentation to council to provide more information about MMLOS. MMLOS works in conjunction with the Complete Streets Ordinance adopted in 2021, which identifies that any future project will evaluate improvements for all different modes of transportation. Once the discussion regarding MMLOS is concluded, the next step is approval of the professional services agreement with Transpo, scheduled at the May 16 council meeting. Mr. Comeau reviewed transportation concurrency and issues to consider in adopting Multimodal LOS Performance Measures: Transportation Regulations in WA o Level of Service (LOS)& Transportation Concurrency ■ Locally owned arterial streets ■ Transit service (Non -City provider) ■ Sidewalk & bikeway LOS not required for concurrency, but multimodal metrics required by both GMA & PSRC o Transportation Impact Anal ■ SEPA-based if not codified in City ■ Off -site traffic signals, signal timing, sidewalks, safety, or payment in -lieu of improvements Street Frontage Improvements ■ Bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street lights, shared drives, access restrictions o Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) ■ Transportation system improvements attributable to the impacts of new growth o All can elicit mitigation measures based on standards and metrics adopted by City Growth Management Act (GMA) o RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans - Mandatory Elements "The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map." (6) "A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element." (B) "Level of service [LOS] standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system." (b) "Cities must adopt and enforce [concurrency] ordinances to prohibit development that pauses the level of service on local arterials to decline below adopted standards" If land use goals = higher density infill, Land Ow I �raturh then LOS & concurrency ordinance should be designed to allow infill served by adequate transportation-> for Transportation Projects S T Transportation Proje[nancial Plan to i is B Orag rams to 5opport Land Programs Throoghoo! LiFe Use Plan of the Alan • Vision 2050* o Multicounty Planning Policies *Edmonds Comprehensive Planning Horizon = 2044 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 38 M N N O LO O LU c m z c� Q o PSRC Minimum Expectations = Multimodal concurrency and LOS programs that meet Growth Management Act requirements and VISION 2050's multicounty planning policies will include: 1. Methodology to evaluate LOS for transit, bicycles, and pedestrians and vehicles 2. Adopt LOS standard(s) based on the methodology 3. Identification of existing and future deficiencies — to maintain LOS 4. Measures for addressing existing and future deficiencies — to maintain LOS Safety Analyses Project/Program Deueiopment en a What is "Transportation Concurrency? o Also known as "Adequate Facilities Ordinances" o Infrastructure must keep up with and be adequate to serve planned growth o Key: define "Adequate" o Must balance priorities and accept trade- offs o Performance measure or "levels of service" (LOS) o Every community is different and should have performance measures that reflect their own community goals and priorities for land use and quality of life Transportation Concurrency: Growth management requires transportation systems to be adequate to serve planned growth. Transportation concurrency links land use plans with transportation and capital improvement plans, providing a tool for effectively managing the growth of our community. You get what you measure o (inadequate metrics = Inadequate outcomes o Key Concepts ■ WA Comprehensive Plan and Concurrency Requirements ■ Traditional Vehicular LOS Standards & Perspectives ■ Outcomes Resulting from Inadequate Tools & Metrics Traditional Highway Capacity Manual Vehicular Level of Service Roadway Segment Intersection Delay Volume to Capacity (v/c) (seconds) per Vehicle [Vehicle Throughput] [Driver Inconvenience IN (LOS) Measures Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 39 M N N 0 LO 0 W c m E z cc Q 7.1.a 10 D \ 95 ea \85 0 A n0 F IN ,5 B TIME: 20 SE'0'ns A _ 50% 75 .� C25 i _40% — 70 E so ` —30% 65 p 35 60 10 _20% / 55 50 45 ` • Traditional HCM Vehicular LOS is Auto -centric and Time -Sensitive RM. Peak Traffic Volumes (The Local Evening Rush Hour) 140 30 ,R Weekday Work H.u. 20 a I ,0a LOS F (Adopted Standard for SELECT Arterials` H11 a ------------ Z 7 LOS E (Adopted Standard for Arterials)90 -- --- i -- ---------- LOS D ' ea LOS C Measured ere M TO \Available ' LOS B60 Avallable �� so LOS A Unused 40 nusa F ArWri41 ; Arterial a' Capacir� Capacity 30 I =¢ 20 I x a ,0 s < s s CL s d < d i CL a Time n ry Q m n • Terminology & Metrics: Inverse Values = Public Confusion Public Experience: LOS Traffic Engineering Grade Report Cards Demand vs. Subbly Academic Achievement Value Assigned Transportation Capacity 90-100% A 50-60% 80-90% B 60-70% 70-80% C 70-80% 60-70% D 80-90% N/A E 90-100% <60% F >100% Highway Capacity Manual letter value LOS classifications and inaccurate terminology, such as "failure," contribute to public confusion and controversy • Traditional LOS and GMA Concurrency o GMA and Local Goals: "infill; compact urban centers; discourage sprawl; encourage multimodal transportation; maximize benefit, minimize cost" o Common Approach: Static vehicular LOS standards based on a mode -limited measure (v/c or delay) from national manual (HCM) that is not registered to local community's land use and transportation goals, or ability to fund o Common Implementation: Develop, deny, or mitigate (Add vehicle capacity); o Common Result: Road and intersection widening, expansive urban sprawl, land -intensive and auto -oriented transportation system o Common results don't achieve the GMA or local goal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 40 M N N O 1O 0 W c m E z c� Q 7.1.a o "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" — attributed to Albert Einstein Incremental widening to "reduce delay" for vehicle How many highway lanes are drivers enough? How many turn lanes are enough in dense urban areas? 19 freeway lanes plus 3 frontage How do pedestrians feel trying to cross this intersection? lanes Vehicle "Capacity" Measures vs. Human Mobility o HCM LOS measures count individual vehicles; not human occupants o Average U.S. vehicle is designed to carry 4 to 5 people o Average U.S. vehicle occupancy is between 1.0 and 1.25 persons per vehicle o HCM LOS "F" = 100% roadway capacity for vehicles, but 25% mobility capacity for humans o This equates to a very inefficient use of the transportation system to move people 6 PF gcl'mg promotion L _ M N N O LO O W C d E z V to r� r� Q The need to change measures and perspectives o Past Transportation Planning & Engineering ■ Maximize vehicle thru put; minimize vehicle delay; Vehicle LOS F = "failure" ■ Outcome = measure vehicles & mitigate (widen) for vehicle "needs" only o Public/Community Misunderstanding ■ City Planners should strive for misperceived excellence — LOS A or B ■ Based on vehicle measures at busiest locations and hours of the day ■ Outcome = wasted tax dollars, under-utilized roads, auto -dominance o Modern Transportation Planning & Engineering: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 41 7.1.a ■ Balance & integrate transportation improvements with land use context ■ Mobility needs of PEOPLE: Ped, bike, transit, and vehicle networks ■ Maximize land use efficiency, affordable 24/7/365 transportation system ■ TRADE-OFF: Expect urban traffic congestion at busiest times as NORMAL Complete Streets: Who are we Planning for? PEOPLE Pedestrians Bicycles Public Transit Auto-s7riented Planning Commercial Vehicles /Trucks High Occupancy Vehicles Single c Occupancy N Vehicles 4�� ..... �+� �i > Multlmodal Planning d r Balance: ALL mobility needs for ALL modes must be carefully considered, balanced, and implemented for the MULTIMODAL transportation system to provide space and safety for EVERYONE c ■ 2015 Comprehensive Plan o Adopted LOS Standards Adopted Policy 5.15 ■ HCM Intersection Delay — "Implement multi -modal LOS standards that v Seconds/Vehicle at PM Peak considers transit and non -motorized operation a Intersection Concurrence as well as automobile operations." ■ LOS C Collectors c ■ LOS D Arterials ■ LOS E State Hwy Regional P Intersection Non -Concurrence a ■ LOS D State Hwy Significant Q ■ Summary N o GMA requires Transportation Concurrency - does not dictate method o ■ Transportation LOS standards must allow planned growth in land use element w ■ Concurrency program should help City achieve land use and transportation goals }; o Peak hour urban traffic congestion does not equal "failure" of facilities ■ Peak hour congestion is inevitable, unavoidable, temporary inconvenience E z ■ Cities cannot build their way out of peak hour traffic congestion o There is no universal land use -transportation performance metric Q ■ Traditional auto -only metrics do not measure the citywide transportation system ■ Local urban "needs" = multimodal and different than rural, State, or federal ■ Metrics should be tailored to community planning and mobility goals o You get what you measure - So design measures to get what you want ■ Prioritize metrics to emphasize movement of people, not just vehicles ■ Measure people -moving networks: Completeness, connectivity, accessibility ■ Measure safety/comfort for most vulnerable users: Pedestrian, bicycle, transit Councilmember Paine said she found the presentation very interesting. She asked when MMLOS is measured, recalling measurements are typically done at 4-6 p.m. Mr. Comeau answered that is typically when volumes are measured, it is the highest demand period of day, but that doesn't mean the metric or Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 42 7.1.a the measurement has to drive everything else that happens. There are a lot of different ways to address it including different peak periods or a wider window peak period. That would need to be discussed further depending on the circumstances of the situation. Councilmember Paine asked if each intersection was evaluated or stretches of roadway with bike lanes along roadway that may not have a lot of intersections. Mr. Comeau answered in determining MMLOS, intersections could still be part of the suite of measurements that are used, but it would not be the only one like it is now. Instead of measuring the City's transportation system with just vehicle metrics, measurements for other means would also be used such as completeness of the bike network, number or miles of bike lanes, sidewalks and sidewalk gaps, transit, transit ridership or transit frequency, etc. There are many things to measure and it will take time to figure out what makes the most sense for Edmonds. Intersections could certainly be part of the suite of measurements that is used in combination to measure the entire transportation system. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding there would be an opportunity to evaluate whether to add consideration of a MMLOS particularly around school zones and areas with more senior -related activities to better understand the pedestrian flow. Mr. Comeau said in the integration of land use and transportation, areas would be prioritized as the most important to have complete sidewalks, bikeways and transit service. That can be considered and included in a MMLOS program. Councilmember Nand referred to the Traditional HCM Vehicular LOS is Auto -Centric and Time - Sensitive graphic, suggesting her comments were likely beyond the scope of Edmonds as an individual jurisdiction. She referred to Boeing where shifts are staggered to avoid putting too much strain on freeways and major arterials shifts and suggested this could be considered at the county level. For example, if Microsoft knows they are moving 30,000 through arterials to Redmond, Everett knows Boeing is moving thousands, and Amazon is moving 30,000 people to South Lake Union, it would make sense to incentivize staggered usage of infrastructure, particularly at this point in the pandemic where the hybrid work model is becoming much more acceptable in the private sector. She asked if there was anything the City could do to begin incentivizing staggered use of the infrastructure to avoid that strain. Mr. Comeau answered that was certainly something they can look at that, shifting demand to lower peak o time periods. Freight companies have some flexibility with regard to when deliveries are made. Corridors a a could be considered for incentivizing companies to have freight moved at different times or doing the a same with large employers. The virtual situation has changed a lot over the last three years which impacts M when people are coming in/out of big employment centers. Mr. Lynch commented this is a generalization c of AM/PM peak when volumes are measured, but with the pandemic there has been a shift in the way o people travel. In many communities there is more midday traffic and more local trips. There may be other w times of the day that are important in addition to the PM peak. Whatever program is developed, what demand period should be considered would be something they would identify for the City. He agreed E Everett is very impacted by Boeing traffic just as the City of SeaTac is influenced by airport peaks. c� Councilmember Nand referred to degradation of the infrastructure and asked if use of the roadways was Q staggered, would that result in a longer life for the roads. Mr. English answered if the volume was spread to different times of the day, impact to the pavement would still occur; reducing the volume would have an impact on the pavement. Post -pandemic and hybrid scheduling have reduced volumes so some reduction is anticipated, but in the big picture that is not significant enough to say that the life of the roads will be extended. Traffic counts will be done as part of the update as well as comparisons with the 2015 plan. Councilmember Nand referenced the Climate Action Plan and GHG goals and asked if staggering roadway use would result in a noticeable reduction in GHG to the point where it would contribute to carbon reduction. Mr. English answered it could, vehicle congestion and idling at an intersection at a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 7 Packet Pg. 43 7.1.a signal creates carbon emissions. Minimizing the delay at intersections and reducing or shifting the volume can help meet that requirement. Councilmember Buckshnis said there have been tremendous increases in traffic in recent years such as on 9' Avenue, Olympic View Drive, 196t1i, 76' and throughout the City. Edmonds has a very interesting demographic, hilly topography and strange weather. She felt MMLOS was a good concept but she wondered about the cost and the burden it would place on City government or would it be passed onto developers via a traffic impact fee. Mr. Lynch answered as they develop options, additional data and staff time and resources will be considered and that will be part of the decision point for council. The intent is not to create something so complicated that it creates an entire level of staff or costs to operate the program. One of the goals is to achieve multimodal objectives while creating something relatively simple and easy to implement. Mr. Comeau commented from a infrastructure standpoint, fewer facilities that do not meet the adopted standard may be identified which may result in the City spending less money. Councilmember Buckshnis explained Edmonds is defined as a high transit city due to Highway 99 although there are no good east -west connections and Sounder only runs twice day so a lot of people drive to destinations and/or to work. Edmonds has primarily small businesses versus large employers. She asked if there were any benefits of being a high transit city and implementing this MMLOS model. Mr. Comeau answered in implementing the land use element, focusing on infill and densifying the urban areas may increase transit ridership which then may result in more frequent, reliable and convenient transit. Councilmember Buckshnis did not disagree, but felt the City's demographics, topography and weather present challenges to bicycling. The ferry is one of the highest uses for commerce. She reiterated her concern with the cost to implement a MMLOS and who will bear the cost. With traffic impact fees in the old system, costs were passed onto the developer. She anticipated implementing a MMLOS with sidewalks, etc. would be fairly expensive. Mr. Lynch answered one of the goals is to create a multimodal impact fee as well so impact fees help pay for facilities. Impact fees can also make the City more competitive in the grant funding environment as they can be used as matching funds. Mr. Comeau explained a MMLOS program will definitely help Edmonds be seen as a more progressive community from the standpoint of Complete Streets, Climate Action Plan, etc. Everything in the industry c and grant funding agencies are focused on multimodal everything. Having Edmonds set up for the future a a in that way will help financially in the long run. Councilmember Buckshnis observed post pandemic Q conditions may change a little, but many businesses are beginning to require employees return to the r, office. cN.i 0 LO 0 Councilmember Teitzel observed the agenda memo lists several cities that are transitioning to MMLOS W including Bellingham, Bellevue, and Shoreline, but the list does not include Seattle. He asked what Seattle was doing about MMLOS. Mr. Comeau said he did not have an answer for that. Seattle is E definitely focused on multimodal transportation but he could not speak to the details of what they do related to concurrency or impact fees. Mr. Lynch said Seattle's program has been pretty wide open and not restrictive. Seattle has not moved in the direction that Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond and Shoreline are Q moving with programs that manage concurrency; Seattle's program has been fairly open to development although he did not know specifically what program they were using. Councilmember Teitzel said multimodal forms of transportation include transit, bikes, pedestrian, cars, etc., but technology is changing in the transportation world to include e-bikes and self -driving cars. He asked how changes in forms of transportation were factored into MMLOS planning. Mr. Comeau answered e-bikes are classified as bicycles and would be measured as bicycles in the program; scooters and other devices would likely fall into the pedestrian realm. If that is happening in Edmonds, it could be considered and incorporated into one of the other measurements like bicycle or pedestrian. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 44 7.1.a Councilmember Chen commented this concept is timely as people transition to different transportation modes with changes in technology and working habits. The public's habits and work schedules will influence how they travel and many companies offer flexible work schedules. Transportation is a regional issue, not a City of Edmonds issue so Edmonds cannot act alone. He asked what opportunities Transpo proposed for Edmonds in terms of a multimodal transportation model. He noted the area is already heading in that direction with light rail, cars, bicycles, electric scooters and other transportation means. Mr. Comeau answered the LOS standards in Edmonds's existing comprehensive plan are focused on vehicles. The intent would be to add measures and standards for other modes and create a program that would include those in the overall assessment of the transportation program and use that to measure development and influence land use. He agreed the modes cited are being used, but they are not being measured and the ability for the transportation system to accommodate planned growth is not being measured against those either. If only vehicular LOS is measured and an intersection cannot be expanded to accommodate additional volumes, under concurrency, development would be stopped which he did not envision was something the City wanted. The intent is to achieve a balance between land use and transportation; having a MMLOS program will help by expanding availability in terms of how people get around using the different modes that are available. In reading the City's comprehensive plan, it sounds like Edmonds would like to provide complete sidewalks, complete bikeways, and frequent and reliable transit service. Those are great things to promote quality of life and the land use and transportation work hand in hand. Councilmember Chen agreed a multimodal transportation model would benefit Edmonds. It is good to have a measure but the City is already doing that. For example, bike lanes were added to the other side of 76' so there are bike lanes in both directions. The Edmonds School District offers bicycle education programs in partnership with Cascade Bicycle Club. He agreed having a measurement will improve visibility. Mr. Lynch commented the metrics are catching up to what the City has been implementing. In reading the City's comprehensive plan, a lot of the goals and policies focus on multimodal transportation. Councilmember Chen observed this would add to what the City has already been doing. Mr. Lynch explained as the City begins approaching the adopted LOS thresholds, decisions need to be made regarding widening an intersection to accommodate a 15-20 PM peak period or considering whether there are there other options such as building a sidewalk, bike lane, or other multimodal facility. It would help create options for infill development and not stop development. M Councilmember Chen said the council is always interested in more sidewalks and wider sidewalks and c more bike lanes, but funding is required. Public Works Director Oscar Antillon agreed it was a complete o shift, changing from moving vehicles to moving people. The City does not have true concurrency; there w are ambitious goals of more quality of life and the elements of Complete Streets, but there is no way of measuring other than vehicles and no tools to identify those shortfalls. This program will provide that. He E agreed it is a regional approach, relaying WSDOT is moving to MMLOS. With regard to Seattle, Seattle has let intersections fail and does not pay attention to that. It is a regional approach because it is not possible to build out of congestion. A MMLOS will help meet the goals and implementation of Complete Q Streets. Councilmember Olson commented this answers a lot of prayers in terms of using transportation impact fees for sidewalks, a huge need in the community. The City cares about bike lanes, sidewalks and streets and want to be able to have it all. Every community is different, Edmonds is not flat or dry and does not have a large, Caucasian male population in their 20s which make up the biggest section of the cycling population. She hoped the tradeoff and the balance are reasonable for intersections and streets, sidewalks and bike lanes. There are times where it will not make sense to do one of those things even though the City would like to have it all. She trusted the team and their expertise in transportation and knowing what's coming, acknowledging everyone likely will not have their own vehicles at some point and maybe Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 45 7.1.a everyone will work with a transit system that is more Uber based. She hoped some of the existing realities would not be ignored such as Edmonds' 20% senior population, younger people with mobility issues, weather, hills, and younger families hauling stuff and people. She encouraged the team to keep those realities in mind as they look at MMLOS. Mr. Lynch agreed those balances will be considered in developing options. Vehicles will definitely be part of the metric, but they can be weighted differently. For example, in Bellingham's program, vehicles are weighted more in the calculation in some parts of the City than in others where there is more transit. It does not have to be one size fits all; it can be tailored to different parts of the community. Council President Tibbott commented the City's impact fees are fairly high because it is expensive to develop where property has to be purchased to add a bike lane. He asked the percentage increase if MMLOS was added to the computation. Mr. Comeau answered he couldn't guess until they understand what is being looked at. Impact fees are based on the project list in the impact fee study. If the impact fee study is focused on vehicle needs, more infrastructure will be needed. With a MMLOS and multimodal impact fee to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities rather than all vehicular facilities, the cost could be very different. If all the projects are related to expanding intersections or widening roadways, that is very expensive. Looking at moving people in a different way can be less expensive. Council President Tibbott commented in the past, multimodal projects such as a walkway or bike lane have been added without improving/changing the roadway. He envisioned there would be impact fees related to the current system and fees added related to multimodal projects. Mr. Comeau answered not necessarily. The City's current impact fee system is tied to the LOS standard but it does not have to be; the impact fee system can be completely separate from concurrency. A MMLOS system could lead to multimodal transportation impact fees that would certainly include pedestrian, bicycle and possibly transit, but potentially less vehicle infrastructure because the standards would change. Impact fees are based on looking forward, and the community asking itself what transportation improvements need to be added to accommodate growth. If the City can show its system is adequate, it passes the GMA test. If the community decides to let intersections function at E or F during the peak hour to maximize the through put of the intersection, everyone will need to get used to waiting through 1-2 traffic signal cycles if they go to a congested area at the busiest time of day. Societal expectation is one of the tradeoffs. He concluded the impact fee system does not necessarily have to be completely tied to LOS standards. Councilmember Nand suggested using technology to inform drivers when areas are busy and integrating Q apps with alternative routes to ease congestion. She asked if there was any traffic management technology M being pioneered at a city level. Waze does that via voluntary users of their app and she suggested c standardizing that may be a better way to manage congestion. Mr. Lynch answered he was not aware of a o city program that influences routes. Private vendors sometimes need information from cities to populate w their apps, but many of them are able to develop apps on own and do not need support from cities. There were requests early on for data points and counts, but vendors now have their own way of getting that E information and populating their tools. c� Councilmember Nand said she was thinking about traffic cameras or sensors that count cars to populate Q data. Mr. Lynch said the City may already be utilizing intelligent transportation system technology to optimize signal timing and manage the flow of traffic. Mr. Hauss said there is an adaptive system on Highway 99 and design is underway to implement the same features on SR 104 to improve traffic flow. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 46 7.1.a 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments. David Chan, Lynnwood, commented he has been a commissioner for the South County Fire for 17 years but is speaking tonight as a member of the board of directors of the Asian Service Center (ASC). The ASC was started January 1, 2023, Councilmember Chen is a co-founder, Councilmember Nand serves on the advisory board, and other councilmembers have generously provided financial support. Some ask why there is a need for the ASC; there is an organization in Seattle, Chinese Information Center, that started more than 50 years ago, that helps newcomers transition into the community. The Chinese Information Center did not have the staff to expand to south Snohomish County so Councilmember Chen and others opened the ASC, a non-profit that serves newcomers of any nationality. He referred to an event on June 3 at the Waterfront Center at 10 a.m. Marlin Phelps reported on May 21, 2014 after recusing herself from previous hearings, the then acting prosecutor Rachel Hunter arrived at the court which included a judge pro tern and seven people in business suits in the back of the courtroom but no one else. Having endured horrific things a couple days prior, he said to her, I don't know what I was arrested for. He could tell she was terrified. He described leaving the courtroom to smoke and upon returning hearing a door slam and seeing a huge barrel-chested cop walk toward him and turn into the police department without looking at him. He assumed the seven people in suits were in the room that the police officer exited; the officer must have been disgusted about using the prosecuting attorney as bait. The people in business suits were federal agents with a similar deal to James White. He questioned why federal agents were at the Edmonds courthouse. The following day he brought a note saying he meant her no ill will. She is now working as a lawyer with a law firm in Bothell. Alan Trumley, Shoreline, explained a friend and his wife were offered a tech job by Google in the Bay Area or Seattle. He toured them around the area and they felt very at home in Edmonds and appreciated seeing trees along Highway 99. He recalled from a college class that people are 9% happier when they see green. The businesses they visited for coffee and lunch treated them well. He thanked the council for Edmonds being a welcoming community and hoped his friends would be moving here from New Mexico in the next month. Ruiz Khan, Mukilteo, Asian Service Center Board of Directors, reported the ASC is helping immigrants M who come to America looking for jobs, and providing immigration help, medical help, etc. The biggest cN.i problem in America is homelessness, domestic violence and mental healthcare, which can be addressed o by the ASC. W c 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING z 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS +° Q 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2023 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 47 1. REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS AND ELM WAY WALKWAY PROJECTS City Engineer Rob English reported the project was advertised for bids in early April. Bids were opened on April 20; the City received five construction bids. The low bid was provided by Kamins Construction at $2,524,285; the engineer's estimate was $1,997,231. In reviewing the bids, the Elm Way Walkway portion came in slightly under the engineer's estimate and the bike lane portion was over, but it was difficulty to identify a particular item that drove up the price on the bike lane project although HMA paving and striping were higher than the norm. Under RCW 39.30.060(1) the prime contractor must identify the HVAC, plumbing, electrical, structural steel and rebar installation subcontractor or name themselves. That information was not provided in Kamins' bid and the form provided did not have the structural steel and rebar installation. In consultation with the city attorney's office, staff recommends rejecting all bids and rebidding the project. If approved by the council tonight, the project will be rebid late this week or early next. Councilmember Olson commented the missed requirement was unfortunate although it does happen. She agreed with the path forward as identified by staff. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT THE CONSTRUCTION BIDS AND REBID WITH THE UPDATES AS NOTED IN THE PACKET. Councilmember Nand asked about the billing by the consultant who missed the elements that required rebidding the project and if the City would receive a haircut on their bill. Mr. English answered there are discussions about the charges but not related to this specific issue. Councilmember Nand said if it is significant, it could merit discussion about the amount of City labor required to redo this process. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with the recommendation to rebid the project. She expressed appreciation to Mr. English for his response to the questions she emailed him. She asked why the engineer's estimate was lower than the bids. Mr. English answered 4-5 items were higher than other bid ° items related to HMA paving and striping. Striping is a big part of the bike lane project because it > includes removing the existing pavement markings and restriping the bike lanes. The unit costs for the bid ° a estimate were lower than provided by the contractor. It was difficult to pinpoint a specific reason other than the general pricing was higher. a M N MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 0 0 LLI Councilmember Chen asked bids be sent to more contractors when the project is rebid. Mr. English said projects are advertised for bid in the Daily Journal of Commerce and the Everett Herald and contractors m look for bid announcements in those two publications. Before the bids go out, staff will sometimes notify z contractors that a project is going out to bid to encourage bidding. Staff will try to do that outreach as well ahead of the rebid. Q 2. LIBRARY PROPERTY QUIT CLAIM DEED Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office, said this is a housekeeping item that has been issue for a while. The Frances Anderson Center and the library building on Main Street were previously owned by the Edmonds School District (ESD) and used as an elementary school. In 1979 the City started eminent domain proceedings to obtain the property. In the course of those discussions, the City made an offer for just compensation of the property, deposited that amount with the court, the parties settled the suit, the court disbursed the money to the ESD for the property, and there is a judgment showing the disbursement, a copy of the check, and a receipt from ESD. At that time, ownership interest of the property was transferred to the City and the City has been the owner since that time. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 48 7.1.a Ms. Cates continued, unfortunately at the time of the transfer, not all the appropriate conveyance documents were filed with the Snohomish County Auditor which came to the City's attention in 2003. The city attorney at that time worked with the ESD counsel but research found the property is still listed in Snohomish County's records as belonging to the ESD. Past documentation has been gathered including a letter from Ogden Murphy Wallace, the City's former city attorney, proposing two quit claim deeds for the Frances Anderson Center property and the library property. Apparently one quit claim deed was successful and the Frances Anderson Center was transferred in Snohomish County records to show ownership by the City. For some reason the quit claim deed for the library property was not completed. The issue arose again last year that Snohomish County records still show the library property is owned by the ESD. ESD agreed the library is not their property, and as recommended by Snohomish County, Lighthouse worked with ESD to draft a quit claim deed that transfers any ESD interest in the property to the City. ESD has approved and signed the quit claim deed conveying any interest in the library property to the City. Staff is seeking city council approval of the mayor's signature on the quit claim deed so it can be recorded. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND RECORDING WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR OF THE QUIT CLAIM DEED. Council President Tibbott expressed appreciation for the explanation regarding the history. In order to support the motion, he wanted assurance the City owned the property; the quit claim establishes that in the Snohomish County records, but he wanted to ensure everything else has been done to establish the City owns the property. Ms. Cates agreed everything has been accomplished. Not all the documentation regarding what happened at the time of the eminent domain action exists, but there is documentation that just compensation amount was determined and accepted and the transfer of ownership was completed at that time. Something went wrong and the appropriate documents were not recorded. There is no question the City owns the property and if necessary, that could easily be demonstrated in a court of law. property. Councilmember Chen said he was glad this has been sorted out. He asked if the ESD signing a quit claim deed to the City was a gift to the City because the City was not paying any consideration and if consideration had been given to gift tax. Ms. Cates answered in the quit claim deed, the ESD acknowledges that an appropriate amount of money, approximately $426,000, was paid for the property and agreeing the City owns the property and it would not implicate any gifting. Councilmember Chen summarized the payment was made in the past, the title was just not followed through on and this is just following through. Ms. Cates agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT & CITY OF EDMONDS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin recalled staff was previously before council with an addendum to the annexation agreement which enabled Sno-Isle and the City to utilize the building repair fund. The City has received an insurance settlement and tonight's request is authorization to transfer those funds to Sno-Isle to deliver the project on the City's behalf. Benefits include expedience and efficiency with one contractor in the space with the common goal of getting the library open as soon as possible. The amount to be transferred is $408,179 which includes the insurance settlement and subtracting the City's deductible and repair costs that have already been incurred. Sno-Isle is present to answer any questions. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO PASS THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IN THE PACKET. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 13 Packet Pg. 49 M N N O LO 0 W c m E z c� Q 7.1.a Councilmember Olson wanted the record to reflect that she had concern about the certification in the ILA that states the City owns the building. She accepts the legal guidance that in the spite of fact that the Snohomish County records still say the building is owned by the ESD, there is now a signed quit claim deed from the parties saying the City owns the library building. For that reason she will vote in favor of the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 4. INTRODUCTION TO PERMANENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES AND BUILDING STEP BACKS IN THE CG ZONE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 (AMD2022-0008) Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: • Process at Council o May 2 —Introduction. Review ADB and PB work and PB recommended language, ask questions o May 16 —Public Hearing. Take public testimony, begin deliberation, request any further code revisions o May 23 —Decision. Conclude deliberation, vote on final ordinance o Council must adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires History of Interim Ordinance 4283 o 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) o Concerns were raised in 2022 that Ord. 4078 did not properly reflect subarea plan language related to building step backs o Interim emergency Ord. 4278 was adopted on October 4, 2022 but later repealed following additional Council research/discussion o 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 o Ord. 4283 was retained by Council on January 24, 2023, after a public hearing on January 17, 2023 o Sent to ADB and PB for work on permanent standards by June 10, 2023 Ordinance 4283 Provisions o Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height (ECDC Chapter 20.12) ■ Buildings less than 35 feet still subject to staff design review process that had been in effect since 2007 o Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB (ECDC Chapter 16.60) Board Work on Permanent Standards o Architectural Design Board ■ Work Session — January 26, 2023 ■ Recommendation, Part 1 (Process) — February 23 ■ Recommendation, Part 2 (Step -back) — March 8 special meeting o Planning Board ■ Work Sessions — February 8 and February 15 special meeting ■ Public Hearing — April 12, continued to April 26 o Public comments received were forwarded to boards or provided in meeting packets Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 14 Packet Pg. 50 M N N O LO O w c m E z c� Q ADB Recommendation — Part 1 (Process) o 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) o Create new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height that are not adjacent/across street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice) o All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I o Unanimous vote at February 23 meeting ADB Recommendation — Part 2 (Step -back) o Maintain step back requirement for projects across the street from RS zones (10' step back from required setback above 25' in height and 20' step back from setback above 55'), unless deemed not necessary by the ADB 0 4-3 vote at March 8 meeting, with minority wanting to maintain the 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 o Minority express concerns about additional project costs for creating multiple designs PB Recommendation o Packet page 167 o HB 1293 limits: standards must be clear and objective o Buildings 55' or less are exempt from step back requirement o 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 o Unanimous vote at April 26 meeting o PB focused on step backs; design review process needs to be resolved Renderings prepared by a PB member illustrating the step back concepts recommended by the ADB and PB M N N O LO O W C d E z V to r� r� Q o Interim & ADB Step Back [excerpt of top left of above drawing] Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 15 Packet Pg. 51 7.1.a PUBLIC CO ZONE 7Y BUILDING ALLE PLALM (STEPBACKS REQUIRED) SIDE Y. 10' STEPBACK P 25' 2p STEPBACK P 55' o PB Step back (75') [excerpt of middle right of above drawing] -+ - - - - - -- - - --- - ----- -------------------a - >UBLIC CG ZIXJE 75' UVILUING ALLE ,,LALM (STEP9ACK9 REOLII RED) SIDE Y 10STEPBACK LM 25' fl[1' FTEP9Af.K C� 5E' o PB no step back (<55') [excerpt of bottom right of above drawing] I 19 T —_-4--------------------------------- _—_—_—_---_---_—_— PURLIC CIS ZONE 55' BUILDING REALM (NO 9TEPBACKS REOUIREDI ALU SIDE Y M N N 0 LO W E V Q Design Review Process Options 1. HB 1293 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) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 16 Packet Pg. 52 7.1.a c. All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I 5. Projects >75' in High Rise nodes — ADB Review or staff? Planning Manager David Levitan explained the PB recommendation included a recommendation regarding the design review process for buildings adjacent/across street: rather than maintaining the Type IIIA review process, the process implemented via the interim ordinance, projects adjacent/across street would not revert to Type I that existed before the interim ordinance but be subject to Type II review process. The PB did not weigh in on the preferred review process for projects that are not adjacent/across street. Originally all those projects were subject to Type I review; when Interim Ordinance 4283 was adopted, it subjected all buildings taller than 35', including projects on Highway 99, to the Type IIIA process. The PB did not focus on projects on Highway 99 as they believed the general intent of the interim ordinance was specific to projects adjacent/across street. The ADB recommendation stated projects on Highway 99 or other properties that are not adjacent/across street from RS zone should be subject to Type II review process. That is something the city council needs to weigh in on because it was not formally included in the PB's recommendation. Council President Tibbott observed Type I has no community interaction. He recalled the intent was to provide advance knowledge to the community/neighborhood about building activity. He asked which review processes offered that. Mr. Levitan answered a Type I review is purely administrative, no public notice, no opportunity for public comment; that is what existed for all buildings below 75' prior to adoption of the interim ordinance. Type II or Type IIA, the majority of land use applications are Type IIA within Chapter 20.01, are administrative staff review but it requires public notice to property owners within 300 feet and onsite posted which allows for public notice and public comment without requiring a public hearing. Type IIIA, which the interim ordinance required, provides public notice, opportunity for public comment and the two -phased public hearing. Both Type II and Type III allow for public notice and public comment; in Type II there is no public hearing, it is an administrative staff decision. In Type III there is a public hearing before the ADB. Council President Tibbott asked if that information was in the packet. Mr. Clugston advised it was. c Council President Tibbott assumed Type III goes to the ADB. Mr. Levitan agreed, explaining the thought E process and what is included in the PB recommendation and the work the working group prepared in 0- advance of the continued public hearing on April 26 was if more clear and objective design standards a a were created, a 55' building was more in line with what the subarea plan intended. Therefore with a 55' a or less building, there should be clear and objective design standards that do not require a building step M back and if no building step back is required, that eliminates the need for the subjective review process c through the ADB which is why they proposed scaling that back to the Type 11 process and not o maintaining the Type III process implemented in the interim ordinance. They still wanted to ensure the W public had an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments and suggest ways to improve design, but with more clear and objective standards, they did not see the need for a quasi-judicial public E hearing before the ADB. c� Council President Tibbott asked when the PB or ADB was discussing the requirements for step backs, did Q they consider reducing the size of the walkways which are currently 5', but in the redevelopment plan, are approximately 15'. Mr. Clugston answered no, they only considered the building. Council President Tibbott recalled there was a desire for urban design to have that kind of walkway amenity. If a step back is required, the walkway is a way to add dimension to the building. Mr. Clugston referred to the rendering of the Interim & ADB step back, identifying the width of the public realm of 15' (7' sidewalk + planting strip) and the 10' building setback. There are specific pedestrian area requirements in the CG zone in the area from back of curb to the front of the building within the setback area. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work done by staff, the PB and the ADB, recognizing this has been a complex and controversial issue which was complicated by HB 1293 at the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 17 Packet Pg. 53 same time the PB and ADB were deliberating. He concluded this was very good work and good thinking done by a lot of very qualified people. He referred to a table in the packet identifying goals the PB working group identified and options that met the goals. The goals were, 1) provide better transition between CG and RS zones, 2) keep in the spirit of the Highway 99 subarea plan, 3) certainty for builders and 4) compliance with HB 1293. The first option satisfied two goals, the second option satisfied one goal, the third satisfied three goals and the fourth option satisfy all four. The table is a good display of the PB's thought process in arriving at their recommendation. He spoke in favor of supporting the PB recommendation's relative to Option 4. He supported moving forward with that option even though HB 1293 will not be in effect for some time. Option 4 provides some relief for the homeowners in that area and certainty for the developers. He asked staff s thoughts about the table. Mr. Levitan agreed the table prepared by the working group (PB Members Mitchell, Golembiewski and Gladstone) was excellent work. He agreed with the four primary goals and the finding that if a developer wanted to build to 75', they should be required to provide the 10' of additional step back. Councilmember Teitzel observed the task before the PB and ADB was not to look at buildings in excess of 75' because those buildings were not addressed in the interim ordinance. He asked what council should do regarding buildings above 75'. Mr. Levitan said the current code language for buildings above 75', which was not affected by the interim ordinance, require ADB review. He wanted to confirm that was the process the city council wanted to maintain in the permanent ordinance because that was not the focus of the PB's recommendation and within the context of HB 1293. He felt it would be appropriate for 75' buildings in the high rise nodes to be subject to ADB review, but the code will need to be amended because as of June 2025 a two-phase ADB public hearing will not be allowed. If ADB review is required, it will need to be changed to a single meeting. That two-phase public hearing will need to be changed in both the CG zone as well as in downtown zones either now or in the future. Councilmember Teitzel observed HB 1293 requires clear and objective design standards; he assumed that applied to buildings above 75' as well. If that is true, he asked why the ADB would have a role as it would suggest subjectivity for buildings over that height. Mr. Levitan said that has not been the focus of the interim ordinance so staff would need to consider that further. The council does not need to take action on that now, but it is something to consider for general HB 1293 compliance, to assess how all design standards comply with the soon to be adopted state legislation. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Teitzel's comments. This has been a very troubling Q and emotional topic for many citizens and the PB and ADB did a great job. She wanted to revisit MFTE M where developers receive a tax exemption for residential only buildings. She recalled after the Westgate c building was constructed that was to come back to the council and the housing commission also 0 recommended a higher than 10%. She and other citizens are waiting for the SEIS which may result in w significant changes to the design standards. She referred to the proposed code (packet page 141) where the entire first paragraph has been removed and two option for applying building step backs were added. E It was her understanding that a building up to 55' would still require a step back. Mr. Levitan explained a 55' building is not subject to the initial step back at 25'. The PB's thought was this size building was more cc consistent with what was originally envisioned in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and therefore they did not think the step back was required. Buildings above 55' feet, between 56' and 75', the PB did not think were as consistent with the subarea plan and recommended increasing the step back from 20-feet to 30- feet above 55'. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the old code better. She also wanted to revisit the council's involvement in quasi-judicial hearings, and not have only an ADB hearing because the buck stops at the council. Having more public comment and more public exposure, especially in the subarea, will be helpful for citizens. She felt it was important to tread lightly because the SEIS has not been completed yet. Mr. Levitan said the guidance staff is requesting from council prior to the public hearing is: • Prior to the interim ordinance a 75' building on Highway 99 was subject to Type I review Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 18 Packet Pg. 54 • With the interim ordinance, it was subject to a Type IIIA (ADB) • ADB recommended those buildings be subject to Type 11 • The PB did not weigh in on building in that area • If council adopts a Type 11 process for buildings adjacent/across street, it would make sense for 75' buildings on Highway 99 to be Type I or III • Does council want to require Type 11 for all buildings over 55' including on Highway 99 to give the public notice and opportunity to submit comments Councilmember Buckshnis preferred requiring Type II review for all buildings over 75'. Councilmember Nand asked once HB 1293 is enacted, could the City request developers voluntarily engage in a second public meeting even if not mandated by ordinance. Mr. Levitan said the City could not require more than one public hearing, but there would still be the opportunity go to the ADB or require a neighborhood meeting. There are cities that require a neighborhood meeting for projects of a certain size and/or scale in the beginning of the process. The project would still be subject to the Type II staff review N with the opportunity for public notice and public comment. He recalled a neighborhood meeting is N required for PRD subdivisions. Councilmember Nand suggested making that uniform for all the options. `" Mr. Levitan suggested a project that was subject to Type 11 design review be required to have a neighborhood meeting. m r Councilmember Paine thanked PB Member Mitchell for preparing the drawings which made the PB and ADB recommendations very visually apparent. She observed the council will soon need to make a decisions about the process outside this CG zone as part of process identified in ECDC 20.01.003, the E permit type and decision framework. Mr. Levitan said the due date for a lot of that work is tied to completion of the periodic comprehensive plan update which needs to be completed by December 2024. L Some of it can happen concurrently and does not have to wait until the comprehensive plan is adopted. M There has been interest in multifamily design standards, a planner has been hired who has a very strong m background in architecture and urban design who will be integral in those efforts and reviving work that W was done a couple years ago. There will be an opportunity to look at those larger issues as part of the o work on multifamily design standards. 0 L Councilmember Paine found it very interesting that there are two different recommendations from the Q ADB and PB. She recalled one of the architects on the ADB did not like the wedding cake look and said requiring step backs would result in a community with more of that look which might not be as visually N interesting and cause other visual issues. She asked if there was discussion at the PB about a 30-foot o versus 20-foot step back outside of the working group meeting. Mr. Levitan answered that came from the w working group. The working group presented their recommendation to the full PB at the continued public }; hearing on April 26 and there was discussion and deliberation and ultimately a 7-0 vote to forward this m recommendation to the city council. With regard to thoughts of individual ADB members, he recognized E z there are different opinions regarding design. The thought was having more clear and objective standards and not requiring a step back for buildings less than 55' incentivizes building of 4-5 stories or less which Q they felt was more consistent with the subarea plan which may result in more variation in building heights throughout the subarea. Some developers would be happy with a 55' building and if a developer wanted a taller building, they would be subject to those greater step backs to provide more protection for RS zoned properties. Councilmember Olson commented it's is rare in her experience to have a document that provides so much information so clearly. She recognized the subgroup, PB Members Mitchell, Golembiewski and Gladstone, for their amazing work that made everything so clear. She recognized all the work done by staff and both boards to provide information that resulted in an excellent packet. She noted the absence of a transition zone is what caused the upset and created the need for changes in that area of the CG zone. It was her sense that the same step backs would not be necessary toward Highway 99 and she envisioned Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 19 Packet Pg. 55 7.1.a more reviews could be administrative. She was interested in hearing from staff and PB and ADB members about what happens in CG zones that do not border RS zones. She reminded that PB and ADB members can speak as individuals at the public hearing. Mr. Levitan said he emailed PB members on Friday once the packet for this meeting was generated and will extend the offer from city council about speaking at the public hearing. He explained the intent of the formal PB recommendation was to provide a clear picture of the thought process that went into the PB recommendation, something staff intends to do for all legislative and quasi-judicial recommendations the PB forwards to city council. Mr. Levitan continued, staff was amazed at the rate of deliberation that occurred during the April 26 public hearing, largely due to the materials the working group prepared. Not requiring a step back for 55' buildings is not a transition zone per se, but it provides a bit of transition by not going to 75'. A 55' building was previously allowed, and prior to the interim ordinance, a building could be 75'. Having more clear and objective standards that limit buildings to 55' if they do not want to be subject to the step back requirement provides more of a transition zone compared to buildings further east toward Highway 99 that can be 75' without requiring a step back. Councilmember Nand said as the PB and council deliberated on the issue of step backs, it is important to consider the vision for the community in 50 years. It is a lot to ask of someone living in a single family neighborhood to suddenly have a 75' tall building across the street. Large boxy buildings are being constructed in Shoreline which create noticeable shadowing and density in a way that is changing the character of Shoreline. She encouraged councilmembers, the public, PB members and staff to keep in mind the vision of for Edmonds, whether it is be indistinguishable from Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace or maintain its unique character. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported he attended the vigil prior to the city council meeting at the Edmonds United Methodist Church related to the hate flyers that were distributed. He thanked Councilmember Teitzel for sharing that information when it first happened. Although it was hard to be there for that reason, it was very comforting and he was blown away by the hundreds of people who attended and it makes him hopeful. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS M Councilmember Chen said he also attended the vigil and was moved to see so many people supporting the N community. Mayor Nelson delivered a moving and touching speech that love conquers hate. He o acknowledged May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Since 1992, May has been w recognized as AAIP Heritage Month, an opportunity to celebrate Asian and Pacific Islanders in the United States. He thanked Edmonds for celebrating AAIP Heritage Month. As a citizen with an AAIP E background, he was proud of his heritage. As a first generation immigrant coming to the United States, he experienced the need for this help himself and was able co-found this organization to give back in honor of AAIP Heritage Month. He will be traveling to Salt Lake City, Utah, to participate in the Golden Spike Q Festival on behalf of Bing Kung Association in Seattle and the Greater Chinese Community in Seattle. He thanked the community for their support and for celebrating multiple cultures. Councilmember Paine thanked staff, ADB and PB for the very interesting presentations. She expressed appreciation for everyone who attended the Earth Fair at the Frances Anderson Center, noting there are three more Climate Champion events planned. She thanked Councilmember Chen and the other representatives of the Asian Service Center, noting it is a very interesting and necessary organization to have in Snohomish County. She looked forward to the June 3 event. She enjoys the rich history that AAPI families have brought to the Pacific Northwest. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 20 Packet Pg. 56 7.1.a Councilmember Teitzel advised Saturday is the first day of the Edmonds Summer Market, opening at 9 a.m. As the former chair of the Edmonds Market Committee, he was excited to have the market open again. The market is a great thing for the community, an opportunity to see friends and neighbors and buy fresh produce. He plans to attend the ribbon cutting. He apologized he was unable to attend tonight's meeting in person; he was at the tail end of his COVID protocol and was not quite ready to be in public yet. He plans to attend next week's council meeting in person. Council President Tibbott extended his thanks to the PB and ADB for their work; they listened to the community, applied their talents and provided important information and guidelines for the council to consider and he looked forward to the public hearing. He expressed appreciation for the council's efforts to study the issues and coming prepared to make recommendations. He looked forward to the continued process in the coming weeks. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who continues to contact her. She referenced comments by two councilmembers about a new contract with Lighthouse and hoping it would be a flat rate. She appreciated the well -attended vigil at United Methodist Church. Members gave her the graphic information that was disseminated, which was not pretty, and she was glad they acted quickly. She emphasize the need to get rid of hate and promote peace. In addition to the Edmonds Summer Market opening on Saturday, the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club is holding its annual plant sale on Saturday at 9 a.m., an opportunity to purchase inexpensive plants. Councilmember Olson agreed the Floretum Garden Club plan sale, open from 9 to 12 on Saturday, has great prices and wonderful selection, but get there early. She reported the Edmonds-Woodway High School sports auction is Saturday beginning at 4 p.m. at the old Edmonds Opera House; the silent auction is open to everyone. She announced Bob Throndsen's memorial at Edmonds-Woodway High School on Sunday, May 7 at 2 p.m. He was a great man, community member and contributor to Edmonds. Councilmember Nand, a member of the AAPI community, thanked Councilmember Chen for covering that. She highlighted a GoFundMe set up by a pastor for the family of the young man, Junior, who was hospitalized after being shot in Edmonds recently. Funds will be used to help provide therapy for Junior as well as to relocate his family from the community where he was shot because he is terrified to live there, but still remain in Edmonds. The GoFundMe can be accessed on the My Edmonds Neighbors Facebook page. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2023 Page 21 Packet Pg. 57 M N N O LO O w c m E z c� Q 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Approval of Special Meeting Minutes of May 16, 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: E051623 Special Packet Pg. 58 7.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER DRAFT MINUTES May 16, 2023 STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD/COMMISSION 1. PFD BOARD CANDIDATE INTERVIEW Councilmembers interviewed Wayne Grotheer for appointment to the Public Facilities District Board. (responses in italics): Councilmembers introduced themselves. Council President Tibbott acknowledged representatives of the EPFD in the audience. (Executive Director Joe McIalwain, Associate Executive Director Lori Meagher, EPFD Board President Ray Liaw, and EPFD Board VP Bill Willock). Council President Tibbott invited Mr. Grotheer to describe his background and what attracted him to apply for this position. I'm an engineer by training with a business degrees as well. I spent most of my career in the public sector, at EPA, Port of Seattle, 10 years in the chemical industry and a couple years in internet startups, mostly on project management with increasing levels of responsibility, number of people and budgets, first environmental cleanup projects and for the last 12 years until I retired about a year ago, I was responsible for all the capital projects at the SeaTac Airport. I've been an Edmonds resident since 1996 and raised our daughters here. My wife and I started volunteering at the ECA when it opened in 2006 and are still volunteering. It's been a great opportunity to contribute to a fantastic facility, a fantastic part of the Edmonds community that I've seen grow, expand its offerings and diversity to the community, and go from something small to something pretty large. It has been exciting to be part of that and to be part of the front line, providing good customer service as an usher and ticket taker. After I retired, I saw the board opening, an opportunity to contribute to the ECA and the City in a bigger way. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 59 7.2.a Councilmember Nand asked if he had any ideas about expanding the public facility's footprint to increase the geographical diversity of arts and culture throughout Edmonds. I think your question is related to offering things in other parts of the community. There have been some programs in schools recently which is often part of artists' commitment, as well as offering performances at senior living facilities. There are opportunities to get out into the community while recognizing the ECA is a very fine facility in a small town. Councilmember Olson commented it speaks volumes about the ECA and how much everyone loves it that they are consistently able to attract such qualified candidates. She anticipated he would enjoy his colleagues on the EPFD Board as it is a wonderful group. She asked if he might have time to serve on the Economic Development Board as well, anticipating he would be great addition to that board. I appreciate that and I will give it serious consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis commented his resume is stunning and speaks volumes for volunteering. She acknowledged it was hard to work and volunteer at the same time. She anticipated he would be a great asset to the EPFD as a board member. The ECA has grown in leaps and bounds in right direction. Councilmember Paine commented his resume is outstanding and he has a perfect background for the EPFD. Snohomish County has the lion's share of PFDs in the state and they are doing a lot of great stuff. She asked him what was his favorite show so far. Every year there's are several that I am stunned by the level of performance. I will choose one from this season, traditional Indian music, Tabla and Sitar. People came for miles to see these musicians. I spoke to a mother and her teenage son after the performance who said she had been introduced to the Tabla player by her grandfather in India when he was on TV. The pieces were SO minutes long, the music builds and builds and there is beautiful interplay between the musicians. Councilmember Paine said the first portion of George Harrison's Year to the Day has an hour long Indian orchestra. Councilmember Teitzel commented he admired his resume and said his qualifications are very impressive. As his application mentions a background in facilities development and since he's volunteered since 2006, he asked his perspective about facility improvements that may be needed. The key is the old part of the building, the classrooms and the gym, the part of the building that not been completely renovated. The renovated part of the building just needs ongoing maintenance. There is an RFQ out for engineering firms to assess the building. In a building that old, there are a lot of basic systems such as wiring and plumbing as well as the structure which is not up to current seismic codes. I've had a lot of experience renovating older buildings at the SeaTac Airport. It is not cheap, but it needs to be done at some point. It is a question of in what order, at what cost, with ultimate uses in mind, and whether to make modifications or bring it up to current standards. Councilmember Teitzel asked about the music annex which has basically been used for storage. I've never been in that part of the building. It would likely need a lot of the same work. The condition would need to be considered and a determination made with regard to how much can be done with the available finances, the priorities and whether the music annex would fit into that given it hasn't been used at all. Councilmember Chen said he has met Mr. Grotheer a few times and knows his qualifications. In view of his extensive project management skills and experience, he asked what expertise he would bring to seismic reinforcement, renovation etc. The most important thing when embarking on facilities' projects is to decide what you want to do, ensure all stakeholders are on board, get professional cost estimates, and determine the operational constraints before you begin the work. It is very expensive to change your mind in the middle of a project. I've been impressed with the city's engineering department, the level of expertise and professionalism that a small city has. Using that knowledge and on -the -ground expertise will be very important in doing work cost effectively and in a way that meets everyone's expectations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 60 7.2.a Council President Tibbott advised his appointment to the EPFD board will be approved on the consent agenda during the council's regular meeting. 3. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.20.110(1)(D At 6:18 p.m., the city council convened in executive session for approximately 30 minutes to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). The executive session concluded at 6:48 p.m. 4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting was reconvened at 6:49 p.m. 5. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 61 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 16, 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: E051623 Packet Pg. 62 7.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES May 16, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer David Levitan, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "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." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. PUBLIC WORKS WEEK PROCLAMATION M N to 0 w c a� E z U a r Q Mayor Nelson read a proclamation designating the week of May 21-27, 2023 as Public Works Weeks in Edmonds. 2. NATIONAL POLICE WEEK PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson read a proclamation formally designating May 14-20, 2023 as Police Week in the City of Edmonds, and publicly saluting the service of law enforcement officers in our community and in communities across the nation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 63 7.3.a 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Councilmember Chen referred to Item 7.3, ERP Update, which is included for information only, however, the update makes a decision. He asked if pulling that would make a difference. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised that item could be removed from the agenda but there is no council action requested. It is on the agenda under Received for Filing which council does not vote on. Councilmember Chen agreed to leave it in on the agenda under Received for Filing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REMOVE ITEM 10.2, RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF PROHIBITING PUBLIC USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, BECAUSE THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THIS AFTERNOON MAKES THE RESOLUTION OBSOLETE. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed it was obsolete but it was a good resolution and she complimented the authors of the resolution for preparing it so quickly. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps, Marysville, relayed his conversation with a Port of Edmonds employee in 2014 who 0 gestured to a 32' yacht, stating it had been seen multiple times leaving the marina under the cover of darkness and returning. While working on a vessel recently, a man his age who grew up in Edmonds said o he hates Edmonds; Robert Barker set him up and he went to prison for possession of a stolen firearm that c he did not own. Robert Barker was the person on the phone when Mr. Feldman yelled into the phone, he's a here right now. Robert Barker has had an illustrious career and is a right wing extremist, a sadistic N psychopath, is the man who set him up and is connected to the murder of Tom Wales. All he needs is the `r° power of a good judge. w 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING E 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING U 2. MARCH 2O23 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 3. ERP UPDATE Q 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 6.6, Ordinance to Change to Biennial Budget, be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 64 7.3.a 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 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 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 6. ORDINANCE TO CHANGE TO BIENNIAL BUDGET Councilmember Buckshnis commented this had not gone through the proper channels and it appeared to be tied to the ERP Update which was on the agenda under Received for Filing. This is a really important topic that all councilmembers should discuss with the administration. Administrative Services Director Dave Turley is not at tonight's meeting and she did not think the council should discuss it without him. Having a biennial budget ordinance on the consent agenda without any council vetting is not a pragmatic way to approve such an important financial change. Councilmember Olson pointed out the council had a very extensive discussion about the biennial budget at the budget retreat which was a public meeting and attended by all councilmembers. A biennial budget was discussed at length with council, staff and the facilitator who is a budgeting expert. Councilmember Nand asked whether Mr. Turley required the council pass this ordinance tonight so he can proceed with the ERP and configure the software with a biennial budget. Mayor Nelson answered that was the intent. Councilmember Paine advised this was also discussed by the PSPHSP committee on May 9. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE TO A BIENNIAL BUDGET. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated there was not a hefty vetting discussion during the retreat. The ordinance to change to a biennial budget goes with the ERP; the ERP has not yet come to council and they should be discussed in tandem. She was not under the impression it will take six years to change the ERP if the City does not change to a biennial budget. There are many reasons it is inappropriate to vote on the ordinance now without discussing the ERP. Council President Tibbott said in addition to an extensive discussion with an expert in municipal finance and nearly an hour of Q&A at the budget retreat, the ordinance was also reviewed by the PPW Committee. The motion is to approve an ordinance to move forward with a biennial budget process. He read from the agenda memo, "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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 65 M N O O w c d E t U a r r Q 7.3.a define what a biennial budget will look like for Edmonds." The ordinance authorizes staff to move forward with establishing a biennial budget process and obtaining the appropriate software. Policies and procedures will be clarified in coming year." Councilmember Nand spoke in favor of approving the ordinance, To address concerns about vetting the ordinance, she commented she had an opportunity to discuss it with Director Turley who indicated the consensus at the retreat was to go to a biennial budget, not a hybrid, and the internal controls and mechanisms to provide transparency and accountability to taxpayers as more authority is directed to Director Turley would be worked into either an amendment or a subsequent ordinance and reflected in the software. She felt comfortable with Director Turley's response and with voting in favor of this ordinance so Director Turley can purchase the ERP software and set it up in a timely manner. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the biennial budget ordinance. The council had extensive discussion about the pros and cons during council budget retreat including different scenarios such as hybrid budgeting. The consensus was a biennial budget was appropriate for a city Edmonds' size. Among the many advantages, a biennial budget avoids having a new councilmember seated following the election. He recalled during the 2021 election, he got caught in that process and although he had closely followed the budget and was ready to vote, it created administrative inconvenience and cost the council and staff additional time. One of the key benefits is to avoid that. He was supportive of the ordinance, advising it was the right time. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 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) Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: a • Planning board recommendation and other options considered: a o Packet pages 217 and 250 M o Recommended Option 4 (transition consistent with Subarea Plan, certainty for builders, complies with HB 1293) o Buildings 55' or less do not require step back w o 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 E o Unanimous vote at April 26 meeting U • Step backs required for bldgs. 55-75' in height: r Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 66 7.3.a GBLK 3EALM (S 10 STEP KLO 2EE) SIDE Y 10' STEPBACN @ 25' A[1' FTFP9Af.N C� EE' No step backs for bldgs. < 55' AUBLIU GG ZONE 55' BUILDING ALIT REALM (NO STEPBAGKS REQUIRED) SIDE 1 • Design Review Process Options o Packet pages 243-244 1. Projects > 75' in high rise nodes a a. Type III -A (ADB Review) b. HB 1293 limits: max of one meeting; two-phase process to be phased out N 2. Projects > 35' adjacent to or across the street from RS zone `r° a. Type II -A (staff decision with public notice and public comments) w 3. Projects < 35' adjacent/across street OR projects < 75' not adjacent LU a. Type I (staff decision with no public notice or public comments) a� E z Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ADB review was quasi-judicial. Mr. Clugston answered yes. U Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussing having that delegated to the council since ADB members a are citizen volunteers and that was a lot of responsibility for a volunteer group. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were off topic. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was related to the ADB's review. Councilmember Paine pointed out changing who holds the quasi-judicial hearing is not the topic of this public hearing. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested discussing that later during the code update, commenting this reminded her of the tree code and the planning board all over again. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 67 Councilmember Teitzel did not recall that HB 1293 included any specific height thresholds above or below 75'. As he understood staff s presentation, buildings higher than 75' will require ADB review, but that suggests subjectivity and HB 1293 requires the review be clear and objective. He asked how that squared with HB 1293. Planning Manager David Levitan said he considered specific height limits clear and objective; it would be clear to a developer if their project was over 75' in height that it would be subject to this process. The bill does not preclude the use of a design review process; other house bills were considered that would have eliminated the opportunity for quasi-judicial public meetings, basically anything other than administrative design review. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Glenn Douglas, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway community, applauded the planning board. He watched their meeting online and felt they took everything into consideration and did good job on the proposal and their selection. He lives kitty-corner from the proposed 261 unit project, which means when the sun come up in the south, he literally will be in the building's shadow until about 9-10 a.m. Although he preferred the building not be built, at least the step backs were something. To any councilmember on the fence about this building, he suggested going to the Sky Nursery parking lot and looking west at the humongous, behemoth building with no step backs. He suggested taking a picture or visualizing that 7- story building on the vacant lot at 236t' & 84t''. That building does not fit with the neighborhood, but he feared it was too late. There is inadequate infrastructure for that building; as the self-proclaimed ambassador for 84' Street W, he was thankful for the stop signs and radar sign. The street is not safe although he anticipated safety would improve with sidewalks. There is a lot of crime in the area and he could not envision adding another 500-600 people in that small space would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, advised that project, Terrace Place, did not complete the design review process, they timed out. To understand the issues around the proposed changes to the development code, she read the planning board and city council meeting minutes about the Highway 99 area in 2016 and 2017. She read the Highway 99 Planned Action Report and the Environmental Impact Statement and its o recommended mitigation to increase building heights. She interviewed a long-time past president of the > planning board; read the ADB's handbook which guides their design review process; read the code or design guidelines for Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Seattle Lake City, Lynnwood, Bothell and Shoreline; a and sent relative documents from those jurisdictions to the ADB and planning board during their review of the interim ordinance. The pattern in those hundreds of pages of documentation are, 1) we are not N getting the type of redevelopment projects that were expected. The market research done in 2017 did not `.- predict today's reality, 2) council's decision in 2017 did not require building step backs for projects w across the street from a single family zone was a one-off decision made only by Edmonds and none of the neighboring jurisdictions, 3) several cities in the region allow tall buildings to be across the street from a 4) less intensive residential or neighborhood business zone. The transition zone is gone for a lot of those z neighborhoods too, and building design criteria takes its place to achieve a transition, and 4) step backs to U mitigate the bulk and mass of a building is a straight -down, middle-of-the-road technique in the field of a architectural design. It is not an aggressive approach and is one of the best mitigations when there is no transition zoning. She recommended the council approve the new code language for step backs drafted by the planning board and then prepare for the next body of work that is significantly larger and more complex, change budget priorities to fund more sidewalks and a park so there is a pedestrian -oriented neighborhood envisioned in the planned action, finetune zoning during the 2024 comprehensive plan update to produce development that creates jobs, develop regulations out of the supplemental EIS that will address displacement, and get better incentives for affordable housing. With no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 68 7.3.a Council President Tibbott expressed his appreciation for the input at the public hearing, noting the council also received several emailed comments. The council will not be taking action tonight. Mr. Clugston advised an ordinance will be provided next week for council review and potential approval. Council President Tibbott commented one of the remaining questions is the distance from the project for public notice; it is currently 300'. In an intensive commercial zone like this, he felt it would be appropriate to notify a much larger radius such as 500-1000 feet from a project. Mr. Levitan responded if the radius notification distance is increased beyond 300', staff will need to consider whether that should be done for other Type 11 and III projects. Staff could create maps with 300', 500', or 1000' radius around any project in a CG zone. He was not aware of any cities that notice beyond 500', 300'-400' is typical for Type II and III processes. Council President Tibbott requested maps for 400' and 500 feet. The difference in this area is it is a densely populated area so it affects more people than a typical single family notification and therefore it would make sense to expand the notification. Mr. Levitan invited input from other councilmembers regarding the notification radius. Councilmember Teitzel complimented the planning & development department for the great work done on this project and for providing a very complete packet. He also complimented the ADB and the planning board for the work they did on this complicated project, noting it was further complicated by the work done by the legislature which required flexibility and nimble thinking. Councilmember Nand also thanked the planning & development department for the excellent work they do supporting the ADB and planning board, and the community members who shared their perspectives. She also thanked the various stakeholders who provided rich, contextual comments to the ADB and planning board during this process. She admired everyone who is able to engage in the political process at the local level to find solutions for existing and future community members. Unfortunately this process is under attack by the state legislature and a posture that it is a waste of time and needs to be eliminated. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Nand's comments. She expressed appreciation for Ms. Hollis, Ms. Seitz, and Mr. Douglas' comments. She asked if this item would be on the consent o agenda. Mr. Levitan answered staff could include options for a notification radius in the ordinance for council review. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Tibbott's suggestion for 400'- 500' notice due to the bulk of the buildings, lack of robust multifamily design standards and the SEIS has a not yet been completed. Mr. Levitan advised staff will consult with the city attorney regarding potential -- changes that would be required outside the interim ordinance. Changing the notification radius would N to require cross-referencing distances in Chapter 20 regarding notice of application. 0 Council agreed to have staff research a 400-500' notification radius. w c a� 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2024-2029 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION t IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM U r r City Engineer Rob English provided introduction, advising there was a good discussion and Q&A at last Q week's PPW Committee. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed: Introduction o Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP by July 1 st. o Document contains all significant transportation projects that a City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years. o City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first three years. o Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 7 Packet Pg. 69 7.3.a Construction Projects in 2023: • Annual Overlay Program (Project # 1) o Project Description ■ Approximately 2 lane miles of variable depth overlay along local/collector streets o Schedule ■ Construction - Summer 2023 o Funding ■ Local funds $1,000,000 ■ Utility Funds $450,000 ■ Annual Funding Goal $2,800,000 per year • SR-99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 2 (Project #8) o Project Description ■ Installation of landscaped raised median along entire corridor from 244th St. SW to 210th St. SW with 130 trees ■ HAWK signal - 600' north of 234th St. SW ■ Gateway signs on both ends of corridor o Schedule ■ Design 2020-2022 ■ Construction 2022-2024 o Construction Funding ■ Connecting Washington $8,219,000 ■ Local funds $270,000 Citywide Bicycle Improvements project (Project #41) o 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 - 100th Ave. W / 9th Ave. S from 238th St. SW to Walnut St. - Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. S to 84th Ave. W - 228th St. SW from 78th Ave. to 80th Ave. W o Schedule ■ Design 2020-2022 a ■ Construction 2023-2024 o Construction Funding m ■ Local Funds $520,000 � ■ Sound Transit Access grant $1.25 Million w Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S (Project #23) o Project Description ■ Identified as Short Walkway #6 in 2015 Transportation Plan z ■ Complete missing sidewalk links (- 700' new sidewalk on south side of street) r ■ ADA curb ramp upgrades with stormwater upgrades Q ■ Project to be combined with Citywide Bicycle Improvements project o Schedule ■ Design 2021-2022 ■ Construction 2023-2024 o Construction Funding ■ Local funds $550,000 ■ Stormwater funds (Fund 422) $350,000 2023 Traffic Calming Program (Project #42) o Project Description ■ Installation of traffic calming devices along certain stretches (based on evaluation results) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 70 7.3.a o Schedule ■ Construction Fall 2023 o Funding ■ Local funds $33,000 Construction Projects in 2024/2025: • Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave (Project #2) o Project Description ■ Overlay with ADA curb ramps upgrades ■ Pedestrian Improvements at Main at 8th Ave. crossing o Schedule ■ Design 2023 ■ Construction 2024 o Construction Funding ■ Local funds $187,000 ■ Secured Federal Grant $750,000 • 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW (Project #29) o Project Description ■ Install sidewalk on east side of the stretch o Schedule ■ Design 2023 ■ Construction 2024 o Funding ■ Federal ARPA Funds (secured) $160,000 ■ Grant Funds (unsecured) $750,000 ■ Local Funds $250,000 Green Streets: 236th St SW from 84th Ave. W to Hwy 99 (Project #33) o 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 o Schedule ■ Design 2024 ■ Construction 2025 o Construction Funding ■ Federal ARPA Funds (secured) $1,385,000 ■ Grant Funds (unsecured) $2,413,000 Other Projects in 2024-2029 TIP • Corridor Improvements 0 228th St. SW from Highway 99 to 95th Pl. W (Project #13) 2027-2029 o SR-99 Revitalization from 244th to 238th Stage 3 (Project #9) 2022-2028 o SR-99 Revitalization from 220th to 224th Stage 4 (Project #10) 2022-2029 o SR-99 Revitalization from 216th to 212th Stage 5 (Project #11) 2027-2029 o SR-104 Adaptive System from 236th to 226th (Project #16) 2022-2027 Signal Upgrades o Puget Dr. @ OVD (Project #5) 2027-2028 0 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (Project #6) 2027-2028 o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (Project # 7) 2028-2029 Intersection Improvements 0 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW (Project #12) 2021-2027 0 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W (Project #14) 2027-2029 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 71 M N 0 w c a� E z U a r r Q 7.3.a o Main St. @ 9th Ave. (Project #15) 2027-2029 o SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W (Project #19) 2027-2029 o SR-104 @ 238th St. SW (Project #20) 2027-2029 Active Transportation Projects 0 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (Project #34) o SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -Motorized Transp. Impr. (Project #36) o SR-104 @ 100th St. Bike Improvements (Project #42) o SR-104 / Pine St. Sidewalk (Project #40) o Walkway projects within proximity to schools / parks ■ Maplewood Dr. Walkway (Project #22) ■ 80th Ave. Walkway from 212nd St. SW to 206th St. SW (Prof. #24) ■ 80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. to Olympic View Dr. (Prof. #25) ■ 95th Pl. W Walkway from 224th to 220th (Project # 26) Other Projects/Planning Documents o Waterfront Emergency Response Study o ADA Transition Plan o Pavement Rating Study o Safety Plan Update o Transportation Plan Update 2027-2029 2027-2028 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 2027-2029 Summary of Secured Transportation Grants (between 2019 and 2023) Project Name Grant Program Phase A .... t5uc d award DOS o Total Secured Transportation Grants/Appropriations over Last 5 Years: $47,000,000 ct Funding Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 72 M N O O W r C N E t U a r Q 7.3.a Councilmember Olson recalled during the budget process, the council did not commit to spending ARPA funds for Green Streets; the council agreed to leave it in the unfunded years of the CIP/CFP for the possibility of grant funding. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin referred to the Green Streets on 236'h, recalling there was discussion by council during the budget process and concern with the expenditure of ARPA funds. The discussion was related to postponing any spending in 2023, keeping it in ARPA which is the reason there is a line item in 2024-2025 for the remaining funding allocated through ARPA. Council was not interested in pursuing Green Streets on Dayton, but were still interested in 236'h Councilmember Olson recalled the council was loosely interested, the price really got the council's attention. She was aware there may be other grant funding, but she did not commit to spending ARPA funds during that process. Ms. McLaughlin said the minutes from the council's discussion could be obtained to confirm the council's direction. The cost of Green Streets cannot be compared to a sidewalk; it includes significant utility infrastructure, particularly on 236'h, such as whole block reconstruction, but that is scalable such as one side of the street. The cost estimate is based on a 10% design concept with all the bells and whistles included such as complete reconstruction, repaving, undergrounded utilities, bioretention, lighting, etc., a full investment. Given the lack of public space in that area, Green Streets often act like a parklike space. She was confident the cost could be reduced. Councilmember Olson commented the TIP does include speed abatement for Olympic View Drive, 76t' or 84'h. She recognized if no funding was available, they may not be in the first two years of the TIP, but sensed there was a lot of interest in the community for speed abatement on those streets. In the context of the budget discussion and/or an amendment to the TIP, she wanted to add those speed abatement projects even if it is in the years of the TIP where there is no funding. With regard to the infrastructure bill, she recognized widening 100'h at SR-104 would not be something the City could do on its own, but widening would be an opportunity for bike lanes and wider sidewalks in Westgate where the City only plans to install bike lane on one side which she felt that was the right decision for the space available, but if that intersection could be widened and bike lanes provided on both side, it would be a great improvement to the City's transportation system. Mr. Hauss responded SR-104 widening is Project #42 in the out years because no funding has been secured. Regarding speed abatement, he asked if Councilmember Olson wanted that included in the traffic c calming program. He recalled a request for traffic calming had been submitted for 76'h and it was being a evaluated this year. Requests are accepted early in the year and are evaluated and ranked according to N to established criteria. Staff is also considering changing the criteria and the threshold; currently if speeds meet the 85'h percentile, a speed study is done; if the 85'h percentile is 8 mph under the speed limit it does W not qualify. Consideration is being given to reducing that to 7 or 6 mph; the consultant will consider that as part of the transportation plan. E z Councilmember Olson suggested more needs to be budgeted for traffic calming; she was unsure whether U the administration wanted to address that before the budget is presented to council or if councilmembers a needed to submit decision packages. She anticipated there were more requests than the City has funding for each year. She was hopefully that could be considered during budget process. Mayor Nelson suggested councilmembers focus their discussion on the agenda item. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with pulling the minutes regarding Green Streets, recalling the council pulled that project due to the cost. She asked whether the school zone speed cameras were in the TIP. Mr. Hauss advised that was related to enforcement and the police department was the lead so it was not on the TIP. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a letter that council received signed by several citizens regarding speeding on 76'h Avenue W from 171s' Street SW to SW Meadowdale Beach Road. She asked how that could be considered for inclusion on the TIP. She offered to provide the letter to staff. Mr. Hauss Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 73 7.3.a advised the deadline for submitting traffic calming requests is in early in the year. There are currently 15 requests, that could be expanded to 30 if he extends the deadline. It takes a lot of time to coordinate speed studies, etc. He offered to respond to the letter and copy the council. Councilmember Buckshnis noted the letter references a 2023 request form. She advised at last night's town hall, someone mentioned a HAWK signal or other crossing on 244t' at Firdale Village. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, stating this is a public hearing and was not the time to amend the TIP. This is an opportunity for input from the public and clarification/questions regarding projects on the TIP or how the TIP is created. Tonight's agenda also includes the Transpo Group contract related to the transportation plan update; many of these questions will be addressed during that process. He suggested the council focus on the public hearing. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson's suggestion to increasing funding for traffic calming. Councilmember Nand said she lives a couple yards from Highway 99; the raised median in the SR-99 revitalization project is unique to Edmonds, compared to Lynwood and Shoreline. She described vehicles scraping the median when driving in the lane next to the median and asked about placing turtles along the median to warn drivers when they are too close. Mr. English answered that project is not complete; there will be a shoulder stripe and a 2' shy distance between the lane line and the raised concrete barrier. He agreed the raised median is different than Shoreline, but it is similar to SR-525 in Mukilteo where there is a similar 18" barrier curb. One of the reasons for selecting that higher curb was pedestrians illegally crossing Highway 99; the higher pedestrian curb discourages jaywalking. Councilmember Nand asked if a consultant would be preparing the Waterfront Emergency Response Study or was it being done inhouse. Mr. English answered that is a 2024 project; no work is being done this year. That was added to 2024 by the council during deliberations on the 2023 budget. He anticipated there would be more discussion on the scope of work during the decision package process in the 2024 budget. Councilmember Nand commented the previous iteration, the waterfront connector, was a lightning rod and she wanted to distinguish this study from that. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for Mr. English and Mr. Hauss' hard work preparing the c TIP. He noted Project #29, walkway from 238t' to 234t'', is timely as that area develops and it will help a ease public safety in that area. He referred to Project #38, downtown lighting improvements, recalling N $50,000-$60,000 was budgeted in 2023 for a citywide lighting study. He asked about the results of that `° study and what areas would be prioritized. Mr. English explained a vacant project manager position so w that study can begin moving forward. A scoping session was held with the consultant recently; he anticipated the findings of that evaluation will be presented to council in the fall. E z Councilmember Chen commented there are other parts of the City like the southeast portion and north end U on 76t' in Perrinville that need lighting. Mr. English answered the evaluation will include the location of a existing lights and gaps as well as identifying areas with the highest need for streetlights to fill those gaps. The study has been not started yet. The downtown lighting improvement project had the potential for funding by Sound Transit, but that funding was eliminated due to Sound Transit's funding issues. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for staff s answers at the PPW Committee meeting. He referred to Project #29, 84t'' Ave walkway from 238t' to 234t'', a 4 block stretch of sidewalk on one side of the street. The 2024 cost is approximately $1 million. Mr. English answered that is a ballpark estimate, a detailed design has not been done. Councilmember Teitzel assumed a 2-block stretch would be about half that amount or $500,000. He referred to Project #33, walkway on 236t' from 84t' to Highway 99, also about 2 blocks, that includes installation of a sidewalk on the north side of 2361'' from 84t' to Hwy 99, yet Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 74 7.3.a the total cost is $3 million, roughly 6 times the cost of Project #29 for a 2-block project. He found the cost difference shocking and wondered if investing that kind of money was warranted to construct a sidewalk on one side of the street or would it be better to construct traditional sidewalks at a much lower cost and construct sidewalks elsewhere in the City where there are no sidewalks. He asked staff to justify the cost difference for that project. Mr. English answered it was comparing apples to oranges; the Green Streets project has a much larger scope of work as it provides stormwater treatment and infiltration as well as additional scope items such as utility undergrounding, road narrowing, etc., a more robust scope of work than just adding a sidewalk such as on 84' Ave. Councilmember Teitzel said the narrative in the TIP states installation of sidewalk on the north side of 236't' from 84't' to Highway 99. If that's the case, he asked whether the cost reflects a traditional sidewalk as the narrative states, or should the narrative be modified. Mr. English agreed the narrative can be modified. Mayor Nelson reminded this is the public hearing, not approving TIP. N W Councilmember Paine said she was excited to see the ADA transition plan in the TIP, although she would like to see funding a year earlier. She was also interested in revising the traffic calming program. M Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. m c Glenn Douglas, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway neighborhood, said as far as he knows, his a neighbors have no interest in a Green Street project. He questioned Ms. McLaughlin's comment that it S will be a community gathering place in the middle of 236'. Ms. McLaughlin clarified it will be a parklike � space. Mr. Douglas said he did not see that, it is a dangerous street, nearly as bad as 84' and he disagreed � with spending $6 million on that project instead of putting sidewalks on both sides of 84'. He agreed with constructing sidewalks on both sides of 236' to Highway 99 particularly since the bus stop is on the west side and sidewalks are planned on the east side. He applauded Councilmembers Buckshnis and Olson for recommending the budget for traffic calming be increased, noting $33,000 is not nearly enough. He o acknowledged traffic was bad everywhere; people seem to want to get where they are going faster and more things like speed cameras, radar speed signs, traffic cushions etc. are needed. a c With no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. a M N Mr. English advised it is the council's decision whether the TIP comes back to council next week for continued discussion or on the consent agenda. W Council President Tibbott did not think the TIP would be ready to come back to council next week. He will research last year's discussion about using ARPA funds for Green Streets. He suggested increasing r funding for traffic calming be discussed as part of the 2024 budget. He noted the TIP is a 6-year plan, but U in a short time Transpo Group will be undertaking a planning process for the same time period. He did not a understand why the council would approve the TIP before that planning process is complete as it may include some different projects such as walkways. Mr. English explained the council needs to adopt the TIP by July 1. The Transportation Plan update will take approximately 14-15 months and will generate a new project list, but that will not be complete by July 1. Staff will return next year with hopefully a new project list as a result of the transportation plan update and update the TIP. Council President Tibbott referred to an email from Public Works Director Antillon regarding the planning process for updating the TIP. He expected to bring the TIP back to council in early June. Councilmember Paine suggested bringing the TIP back for discussion by full council. Tonight was a public hearing, and she has other questions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 13 Packet Pg. 75 7.3.a 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION RELATED TO PRIMARY CLARIFIER EMERGENCY CORROSION DAMAGE REPAIR Public Works Director Oscar Antillon commented staff has been working on this for the last 1-2 years. Once the clarifier was taken offline and inspected, it was apparent action needed to be taken immediately. It is basically falling apart and there is not enough time to go through a competitive bid process. The summer is the only time the work can be done because in the winter all the space in the plant is needed for treatment. This was discussed with Mayor Nelson and City Attorney Jeff Taraday and it was determined this was one of the few cases where an emergency declaration was necessary. Councilmember Teitzel asked how long the rake arm had been in service before it failed and what was the expected lifespan for a new rake arm. Mr. Antillon answered he believed this was the original rake arm so it had been in place 30+ years since the plant was last upgraded. The lifespan is typical, but a few more years could be possible with more maintenance such as every 10 years, which has not been done. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Antillon for answering the questions she provided via email. She recognized he also has a contracting background and asked if he was comfortable with the fair market value. Mr. Antillon answered yes, explaining said staff reached out to several contractors and in a way meet the competitive requirement, but did not go through the official procurement process that includes advertising, etc. Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding this was not part of new gasification system. Mr. Antillon answered no, this has been in the CIP for 1-2 years, but it is not part of the gasification process, just repairs on the WWTP. Councilmember Chen was glad nothing was broken on the new system. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE PRIMARY CLARIFIER EMERGENCY CORROSION DAMAGE REPAIR AND TO REPLACE THE RAKE ARM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF PROHIBITING PUBLIC USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES N to u� This item was removed from the agenda via action taken during Agenda Item 5. w 3. CITIZEN -INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAY-CARE BUSINESSES AS A PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) ZONE E t (AMD2023-0001) U a r r Planner Rose Haas reviewed: Q Applicant's proposal o Great Kids Academy and their representative, AD Shapiro Architects, are proposing to amend ECDC Chapter 16.45 to: 1. Change day-care centers from a primary use requiring a CUP to a primary (outright) permitted use in the BN zone; and 2. Exempt the outdoor recreation spaces associates with day-care centers from the operating restrictions in the BN zone, which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed buildings. o Changes would apply to all areas within BN zoning Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 14 Packet Pg. 76 7.3.a o Day-care centers currently require a Type III-B CUP which must be reviewed and approved by the hearing examiner. As a primary permitted use, they would not have to obtain a CUP which cost approximately $3300 and go through the hearing examiner process which can take up to 4 months if not longer. • Component 1: change day-care center from conditional to outright permitted use (ECDC 16.45.010) A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RSA zone: 2. Nerghborfiaad•onented retail stores, retail service uses, excludinq uses such as commercial garages, used Gar lots, taverns, theaters, auditoriums, undertaking establishments and those uses (equiring a conditional use permit as listed below, 3. Offlces and outpatient clinics, excluding commercial kennels. 4. Dry cleaning stores and laundromats. S. Small animal hospitals: S. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17 100.020: 7. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100 050{G] through [R), B. Day-care cenlers� 9,9, local public facilities designaled and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050: j9_6: Nelghbwhood parks, natural open spaces. and community parks with an adapted roaster plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17 100 010. 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., 4. Convenience stores: 5. Local public faciiilies not planned, designated. or sited in the capital improvement plan_ subject to the requirements of ECDC t 7 100 =: 0. Dig Owe reRisfs= 7. Hospitals, convatespent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; B. Museums, art galleries, zoos_ and aqua nums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21 85 033, g. Counseling centers and residenliaa treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug N abusers: 10. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of In ECDC 17 100 070. W • Component 2: Add outdoor play areas to list of uses permitted outside fully enclosed areas (ECDC 16.45.030) A. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclased building except: t U 1. Public utilities and parks; r r Q 2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots, 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Ouldoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers: D—i} Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17 65 ECDC. o Also required by RCW 43.126 o As a primary permitted use, day -cares would still go through the building, engineering and planning review process which includes conditions, approval and final inspection process Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 15 Packet Pg. 77 7.3.a which would include parking, landscaping, traffic, water and critical areas. They would also be required to obtain a business license and any state requirements/licensing. Proposal's consistency with comprehensive plan o Commercial Development Goal A: Commercial development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent and compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood o Commercial Development Goal C: Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space and housing for local neighborhoods. ■ C.2: Permit used in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. ■ C.6: Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identify and character of individual neighborhoods, thus are strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers in N o Planning board and planning staff believe the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive N plan • Staff analysis and planning board recommendation o At their May 10 meeting, the planning board held a public hearing and recommended the city council approve the code amendment as shown in Attachment 3, based on the following findings: 0 ■ Day-care centers provide a vital service to neighborhood area residents on a daily basis, consistent with ECDC 16.45.000(A) a ■ The comprehensive plan's commercial development goals and policies support the S proposal m ■ The code amendment would eliminate an onerous CUP process and instead rely on clear L and objective development standards ■ Hearing Examiner precedent indicates day-care centers within BN zone are generally consistent with comprehensive plan as well as local, state and federal codes and permit requirements, and have not required additional conditions of approval C ■ There are six existing day -cares within or immediately adjacent to BN zones > • Process and next steps 0Q o Code amendments are a Type V legislative process, requiring a planning board public hearing and recommendation to city council a o The planning board held a public hearing on May 10t1i and unanimously recommended city m council amend ECDC Chapter 16.45 ■ The city received one written comment in support of the proposal, and one person w testified during the May 10 public hearing in support of the proposal o Staff requested expedited review by the Department of Commerce on May 10 d o City council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on June 6 z o City council is tentatively scheduled to take action on the ordinance on June 20 r r Q Councilmember Buckshnis said she has never seen a citizen initiated code amendment. Mr. Levitan said a citizen initiated the amendment and paid for it. Staff makes a recommendation to the planning board and the planning board's recommendation is forwarded to council. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding there is a difference between permits for an in -home child care and school child care. Mr. Levitan answered this is specific to commercial day-care centers in commercial zones that have 13 or more children. In -home day -cares, which can have up to 12 children, would not be subject to this process and can occur in residential zones via the home occupation/business license process. Councilmember Buckshnis answered this is a great idea, her only concern was traffic although there is a day-care on Olympic View Drive that seems to deals with the traffic. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 16 Packet Pg. 78 7.3.a Council President Tibbott said he liked idea of this in a neighborhood, but wondered about specifications for an outdoor play area and hoped when it came to council there would be a description of the criteria for an outdoor play area in a BN zone. He was particularly interested in noise, safety and supervision. Ms. Haas answered the requirements for outdoor play areas are outlined in RCW 43.126. With regard to noise, human voices are exempt between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. so noise should not be an issue. Day -cares go through a stringent state process related to safety and supervision. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not see a down side to the proposal and the only comments in the packet were in favor. He asked if there were any negative comments made at the planning board or whether staff had heard of any concerns. Ms. Haas answered there were no negative comments. Councilmember Paine said this was appropriate for neighborhood districts. Her only concern was traffic calming. She relayed a comment from the public regarding challenges crossing to/from a childcare center on Firdale Avenue. She commented it would be awesome to co -locate RRFB and crosswalks. Councilmember Nand said she was familiar with the neighborhood as she grew up in the house across the street from the proposed site from age 12. She asked if the permitting process required setting aside easily accessible parking spaces for drop off/pickup. Mr. Levitan said the parking standards in the ECDC would apply. If a day-care got big enough to require a traffic impact analysis by creating a certain number of PM peak hour trips, the parking analysis could potentially be included with the traffic analysis. That typically would not be tripped for smaller projects. If there are concern about that, particularly with expanding that type of use and eliminating the need for a CUP, conditions could be established by revising the parking code as part of the larger code modernization process. Councilmember Nand suggested establishing guidelines for easier ingress/egress to reduce conflicts in the parking lot. Councilmember Chen thanked the citizen who initiated this and staff for their cooperation to develop a great packet. 4. PRESENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE TRANSPO GROUP FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE City Engineer Rob English explained during the presentation and overview of the scope of work at the c March 14 PPW Committee meeting the committee requested a presentation on multimodal level of a service (MMLOS), a new program proposed to be implemented with this contract. Transpo provided a N presentation to the full council and answered questions on May 2. This is the agreement to complete the to transportation plan update. The agreement includes seven tasks; the biggest change is implementation of c the MMLOS, a new program that will require staff training and a new administrative process to manage w concurrency. The transportation plan update supports the City's 2024 comprehensive plan update and will a� include public meetings with input on the transportation plan and comprehensive plan. The update will z take approximately 14-15 months. The update of the transportation plan will include development of a U new project list that will be incorporated into next year's TIP. Q Mr. English advised Transpo's proposed fee is $386,085 which includes a 5% management reserve of approximately $18,000. It will be funded by the 012 Street fund in both 2023 and 2024. The cost is higher than the 2015 plan due to the development of the MMLOS and more public outreach and presentations to the city council and planning board. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH TRANSPO GROUP. Councilmember Chen asked if this was a state requirement or just initiated by the City. Mr. English answered the plan should be updated every 6-8 years and it is needed to support the 2024 comprehensive Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 17 Packet Pg. 79 7.3.a plan process. Councilmember Chen observed the MMLOS is a new concept. Mr. English answered it is not necessarily a new concept, other cities in the region have adopted MMLOS; it is new for Edmonds. The 2015 plan identified MMLOS as a goal for the next update. MMLOS addresses not only automobiles, but pedestrian, transit, and bikes, the complete transportation system. Councilmember Chen observed there are new state requirements like Complete Streets which triggered the redesign of Highway 99 to include bike lanes. The City is already doing the work to adapt to state requirements and he asked if it was necessary to spend $390,000 on a consultant or was that something the City was already doing. Mr. English answered it was necessary; the City's current impact fee is auto centric, based only on projects related to LOS at intersections. Depending on the metrics the city council adopts, the impact fees from a MMLOS will help fund sidewalks, bike lanes and intersection improvements related to automobiles. That is not something staff has the expertise to perform inhouse. Information related to densities and growth projections will be used to determine trip generation, a new transportation model synced with projected future development. Councilmember Olson was excited with the potential for using impact fees for all transportation modes and expressed support for the contract. She relayed a point raised by a resident, the hope is that congestion created by narrower streets will cause people to ride a bike or use public transit, when in fact drivers use side streets which is what's happened on 84' due to Highway 99 construction. She reiterated the importance of not getting ahead of the declining demand for automobiles before automobiles are not in demand and end up causing problems on side streets. Mr. English agreed it will be a balance that the council will have an opportunity to consider. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Project #12 in the TIP, 76' & 220' Street intersection, redesign the intersection to reduce intersection delay and improve LOS. He noted that is LOS as currently defined, not L MMLOS. With the update, Transpo will be looking at design elements for future TIPs, but due to timing, the City is on the threshold of spending nearly $1 million in 2024 on that intersection, designed around LOS. He asked how to square design under the old standard versus what is coming. Mr. English answered that was the number #1 transportation project in the 2015 transportation plan and addresses LOS as well o as provides bike lane connection through the intersection, widened sidewalks, and curb ramps. Some Complete Streets principles apply to intersection in addition to addressing LOS. He did not see stopping that project because there is too much momentum; the City received grants for design and right-of-way a and the project is positioned well to apply for construction funding. M N MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. to u� 0 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS w c d Mayor Nelson commented on the fabulous warm weather which unfortunately comes with a desire to z spend time in very cold water. He provided a public safety announcement about a unique phenomenon U that happens this time of year, cold water shock. He did not know the specifics of two individuals who got Q in trouble in the water this week, unfortunately an 18-year old drown in Lake Sammamish and a 14-year old spent 5 minutes underwater at Green Lake before being rescued. Cold water shock happens when someone jumps into cold water and because the water is so cold, a gasp reflex occurs and if the person is underwater, they inhale water making it much more likely they will drown. The second leading cause of death for children between the ages of 15-19 is downing. He encouraged everyone to keep an eye on their children and to remind teens who are tempted to jump in the water of the danger as waters are still very cold. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 18 Packet Pg. 80 7.3.a Councilmember Chen commented on May 7, the community said goodbye and paid tribute to former housing commissioner and beloved community member Bob Throndsen. His poem is a perfect reflection on the May 10 event in Salt Lake City, the Golden Spike Festival, that he participated in. In honor of the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Month (May), he attended the meaningful Golden Spike Festival and traced the Chinese railroad builders' first steps back to 1869. On May 10 the Golden Spike connected the transcontinental railroad in Salt Lake City. In the pursuit of happiness and a better life more than 200 years ago, the first wave of Chinese immigrants left their homes and came to America to build a future for themselves and the USA. Among the many contributions that the Asian Americans made for this great nation, the transcontinental railroad was a milestone. Most of the workers who laid the track were Chinese immigrants, yet for the next 100 years, following the Chinese Exclusion Action of 1882, Chinese Immigrants in the U.S. bore pain, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, darkness, sadness, tribulation, and countless trials. Councilmember Chen read a poem credited to Bob Throndsen: Luckily those immigrants are strong. They are so strong that out of pain grows healing. Out of fears grows hope. Out of anger grows love. Out of anxiety grows calm. Out of uncertainty grows promise and out of night grows light. Out of sadness grows joy. Out of tribulation grows resilience. Out of such trial grows humanity. As one people of the greatest nation in the world, ,we will continue to grow. May we grow more closer this truth that we all hold to be self-evident. That all people are treated equal, are created equal, not just made. Councilmember Teitzel reported on the town hall that he, Councilmembers Olson and Buckshnis co - hosted at the Edmonds Lutheran Church. A group of citizens attended and has a robust and lively discussion on a wide range of topics. He expressed appreciation for his co -hosts and the citizens who attended and dialogued, commenting it is great to have a two-way dialogue instead of three minutes of one-way comment at council meetings. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the proclamations, commenting the public works team gets compliments throughout the year, especially during the snow, about how hard they work. She anticipated the 4-wheel drive snow removal vehicle will result in more compliments especially from o residents who live on hills. Regard the National Police Week proclamation, she was in Washington DC for Puget Sound Days on the Hill last week and on her way home, saw the Everett Police honor guard for the family of Officer Rocha. It is a small airport and it was very moving to see everyone stop and stand a while the families came through. Puget Sound Days on the Hill were very fun and busy. She had an -- opportunity to meet with the federal delegation and when she happened to see Senator Cantwell, she N recognized her from Edmonds and specifically called out the Edmonds Marsh as a project Puget Sound `.- needs that could be funded via the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure law. Those are w exciting, promising aspects the City should consider as she would hate to miss out on the largess from the federal government. She encouraged councilmembers to go to Puget Sound Days on the Hill if they had the chance. E z U a Council President Tibbott reported on the tree code public meeting held last night at city hall that was a attended by about 15 people and expressed his appreciation for the citizen input. It was his impression the City has entered into an important conversation/engagement process but a lot more is needed. He encouraged citizen to participate in the online survey and future events on the topic. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the fun she had at last night's town hall, her 11 ti'. She offered to assist councilmembers with holding a town hall and relayed her plans to hold a budget town hall. She commented on the importance of the council looking at the quarterly financials again, relaying the council president and finance chair have indicated they will have those on council's agenda as the public likes to see them. She concurred with Councilmember Chen on the ERP update; it is an important system that the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 19 Packet Pg. 81 7.3.a assistant finance director spent a lot of time on, including updating the finance committee last year. She wanted to ensure the ERP was vetted properly. Councilmember Buckshnis reported on Spring Fest held this weekend. She looked forward to debriefing with Council President Tibbott on the tree code, noting it may be appropriate to hold a town hall on the tree code. Councilmember Olson reported this weekend was a great reminder of how much we love living here, it was truly perfection and she appreciated Edmonds this weekend. She wished all the mothers a happy mother's day, noting it was a big job and she appreciated the job that moms do. Councilmember Nand commented while the hot weather was lovely for those who have access to air conditioning or cooler space to get out of the heat, it can be very challenging for vulnerable populations particularly seniors and unhoused citizens. Snohomish County maintains a webpage regarding extreme heat and cooling centers and Edmonds Waterfront Center is listed. She emailed the administration and bcc'd the city council to see if would be feasible and something the City was interested in pursuing, to place a cooling tent and hydration station somewhere on Highway 99 during times of extreme heat, such as between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. on days when the temperature is expected to exceed 85 or 90 degrees. She hoped that would provide some relief to businesses on Highway 99, especially Safeway on 238', that have large air conditioned spaces and are inundated and have to deal with a lot of conflicts. Businesses should not be doing the job that government should be doing, protecting vulnerable populations. She invited anyone with opinions on where a cooling tent/hydration station should be located during periods of excessive heat, whether one should be located in Edmonds, etc. to email her and she will pursue it with the administration and council. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 16, 2023 Page 20 Packet Pg. 82 M N O O W r C N E t U N r r Q 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 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 replacement check #65660, payroll check #65661 dated May 5, 2023 for $91.98, direct deposit replacement dated May 5, 2023 for $6,360.56, Police Support retroactive direct deposit dated May 10, 2023 for $51,448.32, payroll checks #65662 through #65669 dated May 19, 2023 for $11,711.26, payroll direct deposit for $815,062.91, benefit checks #65670 through #65676 and wire payments for $793,397.59 for the pay period of May 1, 2023 through May 15, 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: payroll earnings summary 05-05-2023 a payroll earnings summary 05-05-2023 payroll earnings summary 05-10-2023 payroll earnings summary 05-15-2023 benefit checks summary 05-15-2023 Packet Pg. 83 Hour Type Hour Class 190 REGULAR HOURS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,133 (05/05/2023 to 05/05/2023) Description REGULAR HOURS Hours MIX Amount 0.00 $100.00 Total Net Pay: $91.98 7.4.a 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 84 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,132 (05/03/2023 to 05/05/2023) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 129 SICK ed3 EDUCATION PAY Ig12 LONGEVITY phv MISCELLANEOUS slw SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 96.00 4,602.50 EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 276.15 Longevity 9% 0.00 414.23 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 69.04 SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 308.73 0.00 404.73 $5,361.92 Total Net Pay: $6,360.56 7.4.b c 0 L R Q 4- 0 O L Q Q Q M N O N LO O LO O 3 O L Q 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 85 Hour Type Hour Class Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,134 (05/10/2023 to 05/10/2023) Description 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY Hours Amount 0.00 70,906.34 0.00 $70,906.34 Total Net Pay: $51,448.32 7.4.c 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 86 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,095 (05/01/2023 to 05/15/2023) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 30.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 441.20 21,647.71 122 VACATION VACATION 982.00 53,839.05 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 98.00 5,011.91 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 33.00 1,430.40 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 175.75 8,363.52 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 104.00 4,943.43 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 70.00 3,835.08 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 24.50 865.45 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 84.00 4,182.52 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 32.00 1,944.57 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 272.75 16,542.81 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 211.54 12,830.30 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 30.00 2,365.41 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 19,100.35 945,533.94 194 SICK Emerqency Sick Leave 52.00 2,237.30 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 88.00 4,324.50 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 25.00 1,196.61 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 3,404.29 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 4.00 509.12 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 588.50 50,651.70 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 4.50 433.56 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 1,600.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 616.48 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 2,500.84 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 620.77 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 43.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 46.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 5.00 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 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 200.00 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 87 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,095 (05/01/2023 to 05/15/2023) }, Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 92.15 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% 0.00 420.60 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 8,443.33 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 348.87 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 47.00 0.00 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 125.00 8,005.70 fmly VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 50.00 4,530.30 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 Lonqevity 9% 0.00 1,836.83 Ig13 LONGEVITY Longevity 7% 0.00 1,349.83 Ig14 LONGEVITY Longevity 5% 0.00 547.56 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 346.28 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1% 0.00 1,066.90 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 3% 0.00 2,522.49 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 1.5% 0.00 562.08 Iq8 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 8% 0.00 337.04 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 138.08 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 1,261.00 pfmk KELLY DAY Paid Family Medical Kelly Day 14.00 664.45 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 155.00 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 95.00 4,442.16 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,179.59 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 388.30 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 219.02 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 240.00 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 vap VACATION Vacation Premium 32.00 1,749.70 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 88 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,095 (05/01/2023 to 05/15/2023) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 23,352.09 Total Net Pay: Amount $1,199,042.47 $826,774.17 7.4.d 05/17/2023 Packet Pg. 89 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,095 - 05/01/2023 to 05/15/2023 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 65670 05/19/2023 bpas BPAS 4,934.40 65671 05/19/2023 chap1 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 175.00 65672 05/19/2023 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,596.50 65673 05/19/2023 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 764.76 65674 05/19/2023 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 6,274.15 65675 05/19/2023 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 4,147.28 65676 05/19/2023 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 5,978.50 27,870.59 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 3517 05/19/2023 awc AWC 407,793.55 3523 05/19/2023 mebt WTRISC FBO #N317761 149,806.82 3525 05/19/2023 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,110.00 3526 05/19/2023 us US BANK 170,218.09 3527 05/19/2023 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 30,794.04 3529 05/19/2023 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 804.50 765,527.00 Grand Totals: 793,397.59 7.4.e 0 a m v Direct Deposit m L 0.00 N Y 0.00 m 0.00 0.00 = 0.00 m 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 — 0 L CL 4- 0 Direct Deposit - 0.00 0 0.00 0. a 0.00 Q 0.00 M 0.00 c 0.00 N LO 0.00 Q 0 0.00 f° E E U) Y V d t V w d C N 5/17/2023 Packet Pg. 90 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #257500 through #257605 dated May 18, 2023 for $314,715.61. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. 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 05-18-23 agenda Packet Pg. 91 7.5.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 5/18/2023 12:51:45PM City of Edmonds Page: 1 Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 078925 425 MAGAZINE 257500 5/18/2023 500.00 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 257501 5/18/2023 4,284.44 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 257502 5/18/2023 180.00 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 257503 5/18/2023 2,221.68 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 257504 5/18/2023 155.05 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 257505 5/18/2023 233.33 078469 AGUIRRE, RAUL 257506 5/18/2023 130.00 065568 ALLWATER INC 257507 5/18/2023 74.86 065568 ALLWATER INC 257508 5/18/2023 80.67 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC 257509 5/18/2023 44,380.12 Y 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 257510 5/18/2023 9,426.32 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 257511 5/18/2023 210.03 078237 ARIAS, ADRIAN 257512 5/18/2023 390.00 E 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 257513 5/18/2023 3,417.47 001801 AUTOMATIC W ILBERT VAULT CO 257514 5/18/2023 1,936.00 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY C 257515 5/18/2023 390.00 0 012005 BENDIKSEN & BALL POLYGRAPH 257516 5/18/2023 2,100.00 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 257517 5/18/2023 264.51 0 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 257518 5/18/2023 17,478.00 a 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC 257519 5/18/2023 1,913.31 Q 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 257520 5/18/2023 183.35 .. 078944 BULTEZ, DAVID 257521 5/18/2023 899.20 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 257522 5/18/2023 1,054.65 a� 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 257523 5/18/2023 473.36 M 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 257524 5/18/2023 1,009.80 m 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 257525 5/18/2023 24.36 co 064369 CODE PUBLISHING LLC 257526 5/18/2023 2,492.00 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 257527 5/18/2023 56.78 0 065891 CONLEY, LISA M 257528 5/18/2023 320.00 Y 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 257529 5/18/2023 1,901.61 U 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 257530 5/18/2023 508.80 a� 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 257531 5/18/2023 419.00 E 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS LLC 257532 5/18/2023 7,000.00 •@ 078419 DIAMOND PARKING 257533 5/18/2023 3,000.00 U 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 257534 5/18/2023 621.56 r 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 257535 5/18/2023 130.00 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 257536 5/18/2023 2,155.34 E 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 257537 5/18/2023 97.81 t U 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 257538 5/18/2023 117.26 r Q 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 257539 5/18/2023 244.79 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 257540 5/18/2023 256.50 076992 ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS 257541 5/18/2023 10,615.65 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 257542 5/18/2023 245.96 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 257543 5/18/2023 138.13 075673 FARMER, MARIA 257544 5/18/2023 260.00 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 257545 5/18/2023 9,971.52 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 257546 5/18/2023 292.83 075538 GAMEZ, OMAR 257547 5/18/2023 319.03 072634 GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 257548 5/18/2023 237.34 012199 GRAINGER 257549 5/18/2023 165.92 064979 GREATER SEATTLE CHAMBER COMM 257550 5/18/2023 360.00 079012 HARLOWE & FALK LLP 257551 5/18/2023 40.00 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 257552 5/18/2023 1,010.19 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 92 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 5/18/2023 12:51:45PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 078391 HARRIS, BRITTANY 257553 5/18/2023 286.88 079287 HERITAGE PROF PRODUCTS GROUP 257554 5/18/2023 728.44 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 257555 5/18/2023 743.62 078923 HKA GLOBAL INC 257556 5/18/2023 2,070.00 061013 HONEY BUCKET 257557 5/18/2023 3,996.57 076159 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT SVCS 257558 5/18/2023 11,914.40 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 257559 5/18/2023 325.12 066265 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 257560 5/18/2023 353.90 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 257561 5/18/2023 2,934.96 065528 JOHNSON, PATRICK 257562 5/18/2023 279.34 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 257563 5/18/2023 200.00 078965 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 257564 5/18/2023 3,977.00 077229 KERN, KARLY 257565 5/18/2023 224.00 074838 KOBYLK, JEFF 257566 5/18/2023 216.93 075474 LEACH, JENNIFER 257567 5/18/2023 56.20 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 257568 5/18/2023 15.62 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 257569 5/18/2023 485.09 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTY AT LAW 257570 5/18/2023 975.00 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 257571 5/18/2023 44.18 075872 NELSON, DENISE 257572 5/18/2023 219.04 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 257573 5/18/2023 118.00 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 257574 5/18/2023 4,337.02 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 257575 5/18/2023 476.82 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 257576 5/18/2023 4,392.35 030695 PUMPTECH INC 257577 5/18/2023 6,046.56 077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 257578 5/18/2023 10,729.68 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP 257579 5/18/2023 21,437.00 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 257580 5/18/2023 1,125.00 068657 ROBERT HALF 257581 5/18/2023 2,310.00 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 257582 5/18/2023 424.69 079174 SAVANNAH POWERS 257583 5/18/2023 392.00 074564 SCHEELE, DARCIE 257584 5/18/2023 224.00 061135 SEAVIEW BUICK GMC 257585 5/18/2023 69.57 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 257586 5/18/2023 58.13 072214 SIGMA-ALDRICH INC 257587 5/18/2023 647.84 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 257588 5/18/2023 39,198.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 257589 5/18/2023 5,801.99 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 257590 5/18/2023 14,844.56 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 257591 5/18/2023 1,100.00 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 257592 5/18/2023 547.55 076061 T&L NURSERY INC 257593 5/18/2023 8,706.30 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 257594 5/18/2023 564.71 079136 THE GORDIAN GROUP INC 257595 5/18/2023 1,738.55 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 257596 5/18/2023 2,000.00 079029 TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC 257597 5/18/2023 2,152.50 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 257598 5/18/2023 1,720.00 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 257599 5/18/2023 26.92 075155 WALKER MACY LLC 257600 5/18/2023 6,673.62 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 257601 5/18/2023 1,381.25 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 257602 5/18/2023 3,793.17 079191 WSB EXCAVATION & UTILITIES LLC 257603 5/18/2023 2,603.00 071634 ZAYO GROUP LLC 257604 5/18/2023 1,814.11 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 257605 5/18/2023 825.90 Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 93 7.5.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 5/18/2023 12:51:45PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson GrandTotal Total count: 314,715.61 106 Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 94 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Approval of LAG agreement with KPG Psomas, Inc. for the Main St Overlay Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On May 9, 2023, this item was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to the consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve LAG agreement with KPG. Narrative In 2020, the City secured a $750,000 federal grant to fund a full -width grind and pavement overlay on Main St from 6t" Ave to 8t" Ave. This project also includes upgrading all noncompliant ADA curb ramps and new pavement markings within the project limits. The design phase of the project is scheduled to be completed in January of 2024. The project would be advertised shortly thereafter and construction should be complete in late Summer 2024. The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in February 2023 to hire a consultant to support City staff with design of the project. The City received statements of qualifications from two engineering firms and the selection committee chose KPG to provide design services based on their qualifications, experience, and approach. Before design begins, an agreement with KPG must be executed in order to secure their services. City staff have negotiated a fee of $125,114 for the necessary design services. This fee includes a $10,000 management reserve. The project is being funded by the federal grant and a local match from the 125 REET fund. Attachments: Attachment 1 - LAG Professional Services Agreement Packet Pg. 95 7.6.a Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreemen Agreement Number: Firm/Organization Legal Name (do not use dba's): KPG Psomas Inc. Address Federal Aid Number 3131 Elliott Ave, Ste 400, Seattle, WA 98121 UBI Number Federal TIN or SSN Number 604-635-123 95-2863554 Execution Date Completion Date 12/31 /2024 1099 Form Required Federal Participation ❑ Yes ❑✓ No ❑✓ Yes ❑ No Project Title Main Street Overlay Project Description of Work Main Street between 6th Ave S and 8th Ave S consists of an asphalt roadway with sidewalks on either side, this project will run from the east leg of the intersection of 6th Ave S to the east leg of the 8th Ave S intersection. The project length is approximately 1400 LF. The asphalt pavement has aged to varying degrees of deterioration and needs rehabilitation, this will consist of a grind and overlay with full depth pavement reconstruction where necessary. At the intersections of 7th Ave S and 8th Ave S curb bulb outs will be constructed. Several other ADA curb ramps will require upgrades to current ADA standards. ❑ Yes i❑ No DBE Participation Total Amount Authorized: $115,114.44 ❑ Yes ❑i No MBE Participation Management Reserve Fund: $10,000.00 ❑ Yes No WBE Participation ❑ Yes ❑✓ No SBE Participation Maximum Amount Payable: $125,114.44 Index of Exhibits Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B DBE Participation Exhibit C Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and Other Data Exhibit D Prime Consultant Cost Computations Exhibit E Sub -consultant Cost Computations Exhibit F Title VI Assurances Exhibit G Certification Documents Exhibit H Liability Insurance Increase Exhibit I Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures Exhibit J Consultant Claim Procedures Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 96 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as shown in the "Execution Date" box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT, between the City of Edmonds hereinafter called the "AGENCY," and the "Firm / Organization Name" referenced on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT, hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT." 0- WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the work referenced in "Description of Work" on page one (1) a` of this AGREEMENT and hereafter called the "SERVICES;" and does not have sufficient staff to meet the requires commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provid L the necessary SERVICES; and co WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that they comply with the Washington State Statutes relating S to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish consulting services to the AGENCY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein, L O '~ or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: 0. I. General Description of Work 3 The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above -described SERVICES as herein defined, and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this project. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor, and related equipment and, if applicable, sub -consultants and subcontractors necessary to conduct and complete the 6 SERVICES as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. a J II. General Scope of Work o The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for these SERVICES is described in Exhibit "A" attached L hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. The General Scope of Work was developed 0. 0. utilizing performance based contracting methodologies. < III. General Requirements All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies, groups, or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups, and/or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress, and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such State, Federal, Community, City, or County officials, groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum required hours or days' notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit "A." The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, which will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the SERVICES in sufficient detail so that the progress of the SERVICES can easily be evaluated. The CONSULTANT, any sub -consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, codes, regulations, and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the Stat of Washington. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 97 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) or Small Business Enterprises (SBE), if required, per 49 CFR Part 26, shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT. If DBE firms are utilized at the commencement of this AGREEMENT, the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will be shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. If the Prime CONSULTANT is a DBE certified firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function (CUF' L regulation outlined in the AGENCY's "DBE Program Participation Plan" and perform a minimum of 30% of the a, total amount of this AGREEMENT. It is recommended, but not required, that non -DBE Prime CONSULTANTS perform a minimum of 30% of the total amount of this AGREEMENT. o' In the absents of a mandatory DBE goal, a voluntary SBE goal amount of ten percent of the Consultant Agreemen o is established. The Consultant shall develop a SBE Participation Plan prior to commencing work. Although the goal is voluntary, the outreach efforts to provide SBE maximum practicable opportunities are not. a, s The CONSULTANT, on a monthly basis, shall enter the amounts paid to all firms (including Prime; ,o involved with this AGREEMENT into the wsdot.diversitycompliance.com program. Payment informatior shall identify any DBE Participation. Y All Reports, PS&E materials, and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned 3 All electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT, must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit "C - d Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and other Data." E d as All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products, including all electronic files, prepare( by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service foi c9 these SERVICES, and are the property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others, acting through of J on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this SERVICE, shal c be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. 2 Any and all notices or requests required under this AGREEMENT shall be made in writing and sent to the other a party by (i) certified mail, return receipt requested, or (ii) by email or facsimile, to the address set forth below. -- If to AGENCY: Name: Ryan Hague Agency: City of Edmonds Address: 121 5th Ave N City: Edmonds State: WA Zip: 98020 Email: Ryan.Hague@edmondswa.gov Phone: 425-275-4808 Facsimile: 425-672-5750 IV. Time for Beginning and Completion If to CONSULTANT: Name: Matt Desmarais Agency: KPG Psomas Inc. Address: 3131 Elliott Ave, Suite 400 City: Seattle State: WA Zip: 98121 Email: Matt.Desmarais@Psomas.com Phone: 253-344-5266 Facsimile: The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing b) the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of thi: AGREEMENT titled "Completion Date." The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT but may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because o unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD, governmental actions, or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental AGREEMENT issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Packet Pg. 98 Agreement Revised 0210112021 7.6.a V. Payment Provisions The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed SERVICES rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for SERVICES performed or SERVICES rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete SERVICES, specified in Section II, "Scope of Work". The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31 (www.ecfr.gov). The estimate in support of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee amount is attached hereto as Exhibits "D" and "E" and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. A. Actual Costs: Payment for all consulting services for this PROJECT shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, indirect cost rate and direct non -salary costs. Direct (RAW) Labor Costs: The Direct (RAW) Labor Cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain support data to verify the direct salary costs billed to the AGENCY. 2. Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) Costs: ICR Costs are those costs, other than direct costs, which are included as suc on the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments shall be made at the ICR rates shown in attached Exhibits "D" and "E" of this AGREEMENT. Total ICR payment shall be based on Actual Costs. The AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT the actual ICR costs verified by audit, up to the Maximum Total Amount Payable, authorized under this AGREEMENT, when accumulated with all other Actual Costs. A summary of the CONSULTANT'S cost estimate and the ICR percentage is shown in Exhibits "D" and "E", attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT (prime an all A&E sub -consultants) will submit to the AGENCY within six (6) months after the end of each firm's fiscal year, an ICR schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc for the purpose of adjusting the ICR rate for billings received and paid during the fiscal year represented by the ICR schedule. It shall also be used for the computation of progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's ICR cost to reflect the actual rate. The ICR schedule will be sent to Email: ConsultantRates@wsdot.wa.gov. Failure to supply this information by either the prime CONSULTANT or any of their A&E sub -consultants shall cause the AGENCY to withhold payment of the billed ICR costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The AGENCY's Project Manager and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT'S books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual ICR rate, if they so desire. 3. Direct Non -Salary Costs: Direct Non -Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the Actual Cost to the CONSULTANT. (excluding Meals, which are reimbursed at the per diem rates identified in this section) These charges may include, but are not limited to, the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges and fees of sub -consultants. Air or train travel will be reimbursed only to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs (excluding air, train, and rental car costs) in accordance with WSDOT's Accounting Manual M 13-82, Chapter 10 — Travel Rules and Procedures, and revisions thereto. Air, train, and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 31.205-46 "Travel Costs." The billing for Direct Non -Salary Costs shall include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the AGENCY upon request. All above charges must be necessary for the services provided under this AGREEMENT. Agreement Number: 2 0 IL L d 0 c M as L 0 c� IL Y t 3 c as E d as a� 0 c� a J 0 0 L 0. 0. a Local AgencyA&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 99 Revised 02101/2021 7.6.a 4. Fixed Fee: The Fixed Fee, which represents the CONSULTANT'S profit, is shown in attached Exhibits "D" and "E" of this AGREEMENT. This fee is based on the Scope of Work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated person -hours required to perform the stated Scope of Work. In the event the CONSULTANT enters into a supplemental AGREEMENT for additional work, the supplemental AGREEMENT may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The Fixed Fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported a, in the Monthly Progress Reports accompanying the billings. Any portion of the Fixed Fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of > 0 Section IX entitled "Termination of Agreement." y 5. Management Reserve Fund (MRF): The AGENCY may desire to establish MRF to provide the Agreement Administrator with the flexibility to authorize additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the MRF is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. This fund may not be replenished. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the MRF shall be made in accordance with Section XIII, "Extra Work." 6. Maximum Total Amount Payable: The Maximum Total Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, and the MRF. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for Extra Work as stipulated in Section XIII, "Extra Work." No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT. B. Monthly Progress Payments: The CONSULTANT may submit billings to the AGENCY for reimbursement of Actual Costs plus the ICR and calculated fee on a monthly basis during the progress of the work. Such billings shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required unde Section III, "General Requirements" of this AGREEMENT. The billings will be supported by an itemized listing for each item including Direct (RAW) Labor, Direct Non -Salary, and allowable ICR Costs to which will be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the billed Direct (RAW) Labor costs for CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, Direct (RAW) Labor rates, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent, if applicable, upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, electronic data and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment, which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY b, the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time of final audit; all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within thirty (30) calendar days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. The CONSULTANT has twenty (20) working days after receipt of the final POST AUDIT to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings. c as z L .0 c� IL Y t 3 c as E d L c� a J 0 0 a a a Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 100 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a D. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub -consultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of six (6) years after receipt of final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upo: these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this AGREEMENT is initiated before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. An interim or post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT. The audit, if any, will be performed by the State Auditor, WSDOT's Internal Audit Office and/or at the request of the AGENCY's Project Manager. VI. Sub -Contracting The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of SERVICES as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any SERVICE under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the AGENCY and sub -consultant, any contract or any other relationship. Compensation for this sub -consultant SERVICES shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit "E" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The SERVICES of the sub -consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable identified in each sub - consultant cost estimate unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, indirect cost rate, direct non -salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub -consultant shall be negotiated and substantiated in accordance with section V "Payment Provisions" herein and shall be memorialized in a final written acknowledgement between the parties. All subcontracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT, and the CONSULTANT shall mquirf each sub -consultant or subcontractor, of any tier, to abide by the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. With respect to sub -consultant payment, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the STATE's Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011. The CONSULTANT, sub -recipient, or sub -consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT, which may result in the termination of this AGREEMENT or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate. VII. Employment and Organizational Conflict of Interest The CONSULTANT warrants that they 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 contract, and that it has 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, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annu this AGREEMENT without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from this AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen's a L as 0 z `0 a Y 3 c as E d L 0 c� a J w 0 0 L 0. 0. a Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 101 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligatioi and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full- or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of this AGREEMENT, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of this AGREEMENT, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person if he/she will be working on this AGREEMENT for the CONSULTANT. VIII. Nondiscrimination During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, sub -consultants, subcontractors and successors in interest, agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 Subchapter V § 2000d through 2000d-4a) • Federal -aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. Chapter 3 § 324) • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Chapter 16 Subchapter V § 794) • Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 76 § 6101 et. seq.) • Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-259) • American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 126 § 12101 et. seq.) • 23 CFR Part 200 • 49 CFR Part 21 • 49 CFR Part 26 • RCW 49.60.180 In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit "r attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT, and shall include the attached Exhibit "F" ir every sub -contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. IX. Termination of Agreement The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time with or without cause upon ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY, other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged and any appropriate fixed fee percentage at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT, plus any direct non -salary costs incurred up t, the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. No payment shall be made for any SERVICES completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the notice to terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notic of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth in paragraph two (2) of this section, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT the above formula for payment shall not apply. In the event of a termination for default, the amount to be paid to the CONSULTANT shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing SERVICES to the date of termination, the amount of SERVICES originally required which was satisfactorily completed to 0 L IL L d 0 E c M L .0 c� IL Y t 3 c as E d L 0 c� a J 0 0 L 0. 0. g Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 102 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a date of termination, whether that SERVICE is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination, the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the SERVICES required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the SERVICES performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed th, 0 amount, which would have been made using the formula set forth in paragraph two (2) of this section. a If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT's failure to perform is without the CONSULTANT's or its employee's fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to L be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY. In such an event, the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed � for actual costs and appropriate fixed fee percentage in accordance with the termination for other than default o clauses listed previously. M The CONSULTANT shall, within 15 days, notify the AGENCY in writing, in the event of the death of any member partner, or officer of the CONSULTANT or the death or change of any of the CONSULTANT's supervisory and/or ,o other key personnel assigned to the project or disaffiliation of any principally involved CONSULTANT employee. The CONSULTANT shall also notify the AGENCY, in writing, in the event of the sale or transfer of 50% or Y more of the beneficial ownership of the CONSULTANT within 15 days of such sale or transfer occurring. The CONSULTANT shall continue to be obligated to complete the SERVICES under the terms of this AGREEMENT 3 unless the AGENCY chooses to terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience or chooses to renegotiate any term(s of this AGREEMENT. If termination for convenience occurs, final payment will be made to the CONSULTANT as set forth in the second and third paragraphs of this section. Payment for any part of the SERVICES by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of M a any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform SERVICES required of it by the AGENCY. ° Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those right; 'o with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. a a X. Changes of Work The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the completed work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed SERVICES or parts thereof changed of revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under section XIII "Extra Work." XI. Disputes Any disputed issue not resolved pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted in writing within 10 days to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT; provided however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be subject to judicial review. If the parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree, disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit "J". In the event that either party deem it necessary to institute legal action or proceeding to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, this action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior Court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 103 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a XII. Legal Relations The CONSULTANT, any sub -consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, codes, regulations and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under thi AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and hold The State of Washington (STATE) and the AGENCY and their officers and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the negligence of, or the breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by, the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to defend or indemnify the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees against and hold harmless the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the negligence of, or breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by the STATE and the AGENCY, their agents, officers, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the STATE and/or the AGENCY may be legally liable; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT is legall liable, and (b) the STATE and/or AGENCY, their agents, officers, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors and c vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the STATE and or AGENCY may be legally liable, the defense and indemnity obligation shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT's negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable. This provision shall be included in any AGREEMENT between CONSULTANT and any sub -consultant, subcontractor and vendor, of any tier. The CONSULTANT shall also defend, indemnify, and hold the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents, proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or inventions by the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable, in performance of the Work under this AGREEMENT or arising out of any use in connection with the AGREEMENT of methods, processes, designs, information or other items furnished or communicated to STATE and/or the AGENCY, their agents, officers and employees pursuant to the AGREEMENT; provided that this indemnity shall not apply to any alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents, proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or inventions resulting from STATE and/or AGENCY'S, their agents', officers' and employees' failure to comply with specific written instructions regarding use provided to STATE and/or AGENCY, their agents, officers and employees by the CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, sub -consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, of any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable. The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, the AGENCY may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to the CONSULTANT terminate this AGREEMENT if it is found after due notice and examination by the AGENCY that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapter 42.52 RCW; or any similar statute involving the CONSULTANT in the procurement of, or performance under, this AGREEMENT The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT's own employees or its agents against the STATE and /or the AGENCY 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 between the Parties. as 0 IL L as 0 c as L .° c� IL Y s 3 c d E d L aM c� J 4- 0 0 L Q. a ¢ Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 104 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a Unless otherwise specified in this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of a new sole source, or an acceptable supplemental AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall provide On -Call assistance to the AGENCY during contrac administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. a The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of this AGREEMENT, or as otherwise L required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. o Insurance Coverage M A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. as z B. Commercial general liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 12 04 or its equivalent with minimur 0 limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the Y aggregate for each policy period. C. Business auto liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01 or equivalent providing coverage for any "Auto" (Symbol 1) used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for each occurrence. L Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and any Professional Liability Insurance, the STATE and M AGENCY, their officers, employees, and agents will be named on all policies of CONSULTANT and any sub- J consultant and/or subcontractor as an additional insured (the "AIs"), with no restrictions or limitations concerning o products and completed operations coverage. This coverage shall be primary coverage and non-contributory and any coverage maintained by the AIs shall be excess over, and shall not contribute with, the additional insured 0- coverage required hereunder. The CONSULTANT's and the sub -consultant's and/or subcontractor's insurer shall 00 waive any and all rights of subrogation against the AIs. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with < verification of insurance and endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to a require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. E as as L All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. Q The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen (14) days of the a execution of this AGREEMENT to: Name: Ryan Hague com Agency: City of Edmonds c Address: 121 5th Ave N 0 .y City: Edmonds State: WA Zip: 98020 Email: Ryan.Hague@edmondswa.gov 0 Phone: 425-275-4808 Facsimile: 425-672-5750 a No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGENCY, including that which may arise in reference to section IX "Termination of Agreement" of this AGREEMENT, shall be limited to the accumulative amount of the authorized AGREEMENT amount or one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), whichever is greater, unless the limit of liability is increased by the AGENCY pursuant to Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 105 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a The parties enter into this AGREEMENT for the sole benefit of the parties, and to the exclusion of any third party, and no third party beneficiary is intended or created by the execution of this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under section V "Payment Provisions" until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY may take such other action as is c available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. 0. XIII. Extra Work 0 A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this AGREEMENZ y in the SERVICES to be performed. M B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise L affects any other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment .° in the: (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms 0 and shall modify this AGREEMENT accordingly. Y C. The CONSULTANT must submit any "request for equitable adjustment," hereafter referred to as "CLAIM," 3 under this clause within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY a decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a CLAIM submitted before final E payment of this AGREEMENT. L a� D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the section XI "Disputes" clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. J E. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (A.) and (B.) above, the maximum amount payable for ° this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement c to this AGREEMENT. a a a XIV. Endorsement of Plans If applicable, the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans, estimates, or any other engineering data furnished by them. XV. Federal Review The Federal Highway Administration shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the SERVICES in progress. XVI. Certification of the Consultant and the Agency Attached hereto as Exhibit "G-1(a and b)" are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, Exhibit "G-2" Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions, Exhibit "G-3" Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying and Exhibit "G-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibit "G-3" is required only in AGREEMENT's over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) and Exhibit "G-4" is required only in AGREEMENT's over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00.) These Exhibits must be executed by the CONSULTANT, and submitted with the master AGREEMENT, and returned to the AGENCY at the address listed in section III "Genera Requirements" prior to its performance of any SERVICES under this AGREEMENT. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 106 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a XVII. Complete Agreement This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, o modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as a supplement to this AGREEMENT. XVIII. Execution and Acceptance This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and AGREEMENT's contained in the proposal, and the supporting material submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept this AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. XIX. Protection of Confidential Information The CONSULTANT acknowledges that some of the material and information that may come into its possession or knowledge in connection with this AGREEMENT or its performance may consist of information that is exempt from disclosure to the public or other unauthorized persons under either chapter 42.56 RCW or other local, state or federal statutes ("State's Confidential Information"). The "State's Confidential Information" includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, financial profiles, credit card information, driver's license numbers, medical data, law enforcement records (or any other information identifiable to an individual), STATE and AGENCY source code or object code, STATE and AGENCY security data, non-public Specifications, STATE and AGENCY non -publicly available data, proprietary software, State security data, or information which may jeopardize any part of the project that relates to any of these types of information. The CONSULTANT agrees to hold the State's Confidential Information in strictest confidence and not to make use of the State's Confidential Information for any purpose other than the performance of this AGREEMENT, to release it only to authorized employees, sub -consultants or subcontractors requiring such information for the purposes of carrying out this AGREEMENT, and not to release, divulge, publish, transfer, sell, disclose, or otherwise make it known to any other party without the AGENCY's express written consent or as provided by law. The CONSULTANT agrees to release such information or material only to employees, sub -consultants or subcontractors who have signed a nondisclosure AGREEMENT, the terms of which have been previously approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT agrees to implement physical, electronic, and managerial safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the State's Confidential Information. Immediately upon expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall, at the AGENCY's option: (i) certify to the AGENCY that the CONSULTANT has destroyed all of the State's Confidential Information; or (ii) returned all of the State's Confidential Information to the AGENCY, or (iii) take whatever other steps the AGENCY requires of the CONSULTANT to protect the State's Confidential Information. As required under Executive Order 00-03, the CONSULTANT shall maintain a log documenting the following: the State's Confidential Information received in the performance of this AGREEMENT; the purpose(s) for which the State's Confidential Information was received; who received, maintained and used the State's Confidential Information; and the final disposition of the State's Confidential Information. The CONSULTANT's records shall be subject to inspection, review, or audit upon reasonable notice from the AGENCY. The AGENCY reserves the right to monitor, audit, or investigate the use of the State's Confidential Information collected, used, or acquired by the CONSULTANT through this AGREEMENT. The monitoring, auditing, or investigating may include, but is not limited to, salting databases. as 0 IL L d > as z L .0 c� IL Y �3 c as E d L Im M c� J 4- 0 0 0. 0. a Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 107 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a Violation of this section by the CONSULTANT or its sub -consultants or subcontractors may result in termination of this AGREEMENT and demand for return of all State's Confidential Information, monetary damages, or penalties. It is understood and acknowledged that the CONSULTANT may provide the AGENCY with information which is proprietary and/or confidential during the term of this AGREEMENT. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of such information during the term of this AGREEMENT and afterwards. All materials containing such proprietary and/or confidential information shall be clearly identified and marked as "Confidential" and shall be returned to the disclosing party at the conclusion of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall provide the AGENCY with a list of all information and materials it considers confidentia and/or proprietary in nature: (a) at the commencement of the term of this AGREEMENT; or (b) as soon as such confidential or proprietary material is developed. "Proprietary and/or confidential information" is not meant to include any information which, at the time of its disclosure: (i) is already known to the other party; (ii) is rightfully disclosed to one of the parties by a third parry that is not acting as an agent or representative for the other party; (iii) is independently developed by or for the other party; (iv) is publicly known; or (v) is generally utilized by unaffiliated third parties engaged in the same business or businesses as the CONSULTANT. The parties also acknowledge that the AGENCY is subject to Washington State and federal public disclosure laws. As such, the AGENCY shall maintain the confidentiality of all such information marked proprietary and/ or confidential or otherwise exempt, unless such disclosure is required under applicable state or federal law. If a public disclosure request is made to view materials identified as "Proprietary and/or confidential information" or otherwise exempt information, the AGENCY will notify the CONSULTANT of the request and of the date that sucl records will be released to the requester unless the CONSULTANT obtains a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure. If the CONSULTANT fails to obtain the court order enjoining disclosure, the AGENCY will release the requested information on the date specified. The CONSULTANT agrees to notify the sub -consultant of any AGENCY communication regarding disclosure that may include a sub -consultant's proprietary and/or confidential information. The CONSULTANT notification to the sub -consultant will include the date that such records will be released by the AGENCY to the requester and state that unless the sub -consultant obtains a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure the AGENCY will release the requested information. If the CONSULTANT and/or sub -consultant fail to obtain a court order or other judicial relief enjoining the AGENCY by the release date, the CONSULTANT shall waive and release and shall hold harmless and indemnify the AGENCY from all claims of actual or alleged damages, liabilities, or costs associated with the AGENCY's said disclosure of sub -consultants' information. XX. Records Maintenance During the progress of the Work and SERVICES provided hereunder and for a period of not less than six (6) years from the date of final payment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall keep, retain and maintain all "documents" pertaining to the SERVICES provided pursuant to this AGREEMENT. Copies of all "documents" pertaining to the SERVICES provided hereunder shall be made available for review at the CONSULTANT's place of business during normal working hours. If any litigation, claim or audit is commenced, the CONSULTANT shall cooperate with AGENCY and assist in the production of all such documents. "Documents" shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings have been resolved even though such litigation, claim or audit continues past the six (6) year retention period. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, "documents" means every writing or record of every type and description, including electronically stored information ("ESI"), that is in the possession, control, or custody of the CONSULTANT, including, without limitation, any and all correspondences, contracts, AGREEMENT `s, appraisals, plans, designs, data, surveys, maps, spreadsheets, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, reports, records, telegrams, schedules, diaries, notebooks, logbooks, invoices, accounting records, work sheets, charts, notes, drafts, scribblings, recordings, visual displays, photographs, minutes of meetings, ¢ Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 108 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a tabulations, computations, summaries, inventories, and writings regarding conferences, conversations or telephone conversations, and any and all other taped, recorded, written, printed or typed matters of any kind or description; every copy of the foregoing whether or not the original is in the possession, custody, or control of the CONSULTANT, and every copy of any of the foregoing, whether or not such copy is a copy identical to an original or whether or not such copy contains any commentary or notation whatsoever that does not appear on the original. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, "ESI" means any and all computer data or electronic recorded media of any kind, including "Native Files", that are stored in any medium from which it can be retrieved and examined, either directly or after translation into a reasonably useable form. ESI may include information and/or documentation stored in various software programs such as: Email, Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Publisher, PowerPoint, Adobe Acrobat, SQL databases, or any other software or electronic communication programs or databases that the CONSULTANT may use in the performance of its operations. ESI may be located on network servers, backup tapes, smart phones, thumb drives, CDs, DVDs, floppy disks, work computers, cell phones, laptops or any other electronic device that CONSULTANT uses in the performance of its Work or SERVICES hereunder, including any personal devices used by the CONSULTANT or any sub -consultant at home. "Native files" are a subset of ESI and refer to the electronic format of the application in which such ESI is normally created, viewed, and /or modified. The CONSULTANT shall include this section XX "Records Maintenance" in every subcontract it enters into in relation to this AGREEMENT and bind the sub -consultant to its terms, unless expressly agreed to otherwise in writing by the AGENCY prior to the execution of such subcontract. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the "Execution Date" box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT. Signature Signature Date Date a Any modification, change, or reformation of this AGREEMENTshall require approval as to form by the Office of the Attorney General. Agreement Number: Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Packet Pg. 109 Revised 0210112021 7.6.a Exhibit A Please see attached Exhibit A, Scope of Work. Scope of Wor) Project No. Agreement Number: Exhibit A - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 02101/2 Packet Pg. 110 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a CITY OF EDMONDS MAIN ST OVERLAY PROJECT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN SERVICES PROJECT NO. xxxxxx FEDERAL AID NO. STP(UL)- SCOPE OF WORK May 2023 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND Main Street between 6` Ave S and 811 Ave S consists of an asphalt roadway with sidewalks on either side, this project will run from the east leg of the intersection of 61h Ave S to the east leg of the 81h Ave S intersection. The project length is approximately 1400 LF. The roadway generally consists of 2 vehicle travel lanes and 2 parking lanes. There is one T Intersection with stop control on all three legs and one standard intersection with stop control on the two minor leg approaches. T h e asphalt pavement has aged to varying degrees of deterioration and needs rehabilitation. Several ADA curb ramps will require upgrade to current ADA standards. This project has federal funds (STP) for both design and construction. B. ASSUMPTIONS The following are project assumptions: ➢ Project limits run from the E leg of 61h and Main intersection to the E leg of 8th and Main intersection. ➢ This project will not include Right Of Way acquisitions. ➢ The project may require Right -Of -Way coordination for temporary construction or sidewalk easements. ➢ Survey will only be conducted at the intersections for the purpose of ADA improvement and curb bulb designs. A combination of field work, City supplied survey and City supplied aerials will be used in between intersections. ➢ Floodplain analysis will not be required as the project will not generate additional fill within the floodplain boundary. ➢ This project will be exempt per the City's Stormwater Technical Notebook under the definition of a pavement maintenance project. ➢ This project will be exempt from Shoreline permits. ➢ This project will not require formal ESA consultation with National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and will apply for an ESA exemption. ➢ Horizontal and vertical datums utilized will be NAD83/2011 and NAVD88 respectively. ➢ There will be no Illumination updates. ➢ The city is responsible for all environmental permitting and related coordination with WSDOT ➢ Potholes (if required) will be performed by Franchise Utilities or by the City City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 111 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a C. KPG PSOMAS DELIVERABLES Deliverables prepared by the Consultant are identified at the end of each task. D. CITY OF EDMONDS PROVIDED ITEMS: The City of Edmonds will provide / prepare the following: ➢ Any adjacent development permits, plans, consultations and reports. ➢ Submittal reviews, comments, and approvals (one (1) compiled set per submittal) ➢ As -built plans, GIS maps, or other existing mapping available ➢ Boiler plate specifications (word format) E. SCOPE OF WORK WORK ELEMENT 1 — MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION / ADMINISTRATION 1.1. The Consultant will provide continuous project management for the project duration through the final design phase (estimate 10 months). 1.2. The Consultant will provide continuous management and administration of all subconsultants included in this scope of work. 1.3. The consultant will set-up and facilitate monthly check -in meeting between KPG, City staff, and subconsultants using Microsoft Teams. The consultant shall prepare for and lead a project kickoff meeting, including preparation of an agenda and the meeting minutes. (estimate 12 meetings) 1.4. The Consultant will prepare and update the project schedule monthly using Microsoft Project. 1.5. Submit monthly status reports with invoices. The status report shall summarize activities completed for each task during the billing period and anticipated deliverables for the next month. The Consultant shall also summarize problems encountered and actions taken for their resolution, potential future delays, and issues requiring City direction. Any element that may impact the schedule and design fee shall be included in the report. 1.6. Submit monthly invoices for duration of project. Consultant shall submit the proposed invoice format to City for review and approval prior to the first invoice. The City reserves the right to add or make changes to the invoice format if necessary. 1.7. Submit required insurance and FAR overhead information and ensure LAG agreement stays current. Collect and monitor all WSDOT approved overhead rates City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 112 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a for duration of agreement and ensure subconsultant invoices are billing correct overhead rates and profit percentage. 1.8. The Consultant team shall enter all payment information monthly into the WSDOT DMCS. The information entered by the Consultant shall include amounts received from the City and amounts paid to all subconsultants. Subconsultants shall confirm payment amount and date payment was received from Consultant each month in DMCS. Work Element 1 Deliverables: ➢ Monthly Progress Reports ➢ Monthly Invoices in accordance with WSDOT LAG Manual ➢ Project Kick-off meeting ➢ Meeting Minutes ➢ Monthly Critical Path Project Schedule (PDF) ➢ Provide all WSDOT approved overhead rates for Consultant team ➢ Monitor Consultant and subconsultant invoices to ensure correct WSDOT approved overhead rates are being used in accordance with WSDOT LAG Manual. ➢ Monthly DMCS compliance in accordance with WSDOT LAG Manual WORK ELEMENT 2 — SURVEY AND BASE MAPPING 2.1. The Consultant will provide mapping work to prepare 1"=20' topographic base map and digital terrain model (DTM) in AutoCAD Civil 3D format of the project within the limits described below. The base mapping work will include: ➢ The mapping limits shall be: from 50' W of the intersection of Durbin Dr and Main St to 250' E of the intersection of 71" Ave N, and from Main St, 100' E and W of the intersection of 81" Ave S and Main St. Mapping shall extend 50 feet up each side City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 113 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a street to ensure drainage concerns and tie-ins are properly addressed. At these intersections, mapping will include surface level back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk to ensure all existing and proposed ADA modifications meet standards. Existing sidewalk mapping for the length of the corridor will be incorporated using GIS data and field verification. ➢ One -foot contours generated from the DTM. ➢ Profiles of the existing roadway surface along the edge of pavement and at the roadway crown line. Points will be surveyed at approximately 25-ft intervals. 2.2. Field Survey Note Reduction. Perform note reduction of the field survey data. 2.3. The Consultant will establish horizontal and vertical control points along the corridor and within the project limits described above. Approximately 10 control points will be established and will be made available for the construction contractor's use during construction. The Consultant will locate, field survey, and calculate positions for visible and accessible monuments and control points throughout the project limits, using the Washington State plane coordinate system as indicated in the assumptions above. Road rights of way within the project limits will be determined from available public records (i.e. records of survey, plats, state right-of-way plans, etc.) and found survey monuments. Parcel lines will be determined from GIS information. Right-of-way and parcel information will be added to the base map. Conventional or GPS surveying methods will be used on this project. Monuments or corners to be located and field surveyed may include the following: o Section Corners o Monuments shown or found as indicated on survey records. 2.4. The consultant will field locate geotechnical borings and incorporate them into the basemap in support of Work Element 4. 2.5. Survey utility location paint marks provided, using a utility locating company, at 25-ft intervals and visible and accessible surface features (valves, manholes, catch basins, junction boxes, hydrants, and vaults). While every reasonable effort will be made by Consultant to depict the location of underground utilities based on utility locates, Consultant is not liable for errors or omissions by utility locators or erroneous or insufficient information shown on utility record drawings. Pipe inverts inside sewer manholes will not be measured. The Consultant will prepare an as -built utility AutoCAD layer in the base map from this information. Work Element 2 Deliverables: ➢ Electronic basemap in KPG AutoCAD Civil 3D 2018 format City of Edmonds 4 KPG Psomas, Inc. Main St Overlay Project May 2023 Scope of Work Packet Pg. 114 7.6.a EXHIBIT A WORK ELEMENT 3 — PRELIMINARY DESIGN 3.1. The Consultant will perform a background review of all existing information along the corridor including but not limited to, Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project. Existing project information will be incorporated into Plans and work approach, as feasible. 3.2. The Consultant will prepare a curb ramp assessment worksheet evaluating each curb ramp for slope and dimensional compliance. This evaluation will be based on the City adopted 2011 PROWAG guidelines per the City's ADA Transition Plan. 3.3. The consultant shall complete the WSDOT design matrix in accordance with Chapter 42. The matrix should be updated during the design process until final plans and specifications are accepted by City. 3.4. The consultant will conduct a site assessment of field conditions. Field verify limits and scope of construction activity with City Staff and establish the project footprint. 3.5. Prepare 30% Plans and Cost Estimate. Once project limits have been confirmed, a 30% plan set will be prepared with a corresponding engineer's cost estimate for construction. The 30% Plans will be formatted to provide location of existing utilities (including utility poles and support wire/anchors), signs, flower poles and any other existing facilities within the project limits and sufficient detail for convenient field layout of all proposed improvements and will set the horizontal project envelope baseline. City Standard Details and WSDOT Standard Plans will supplement the project specific details as required. The consultant shall use AutoTurn analysis and prepare exhibits when developing the layouts for pedestrian curb ramp bulb -outs. Plans shall be 1 "=20' scale full size and shall include: ➢ Title and Index sheet with a vicinity map (1 sheet) ➢ Legends, Abbreviations, Survey Control and General Notes (1 sheet) ➢ Typical Sections and Details (2 sheets) ➢ Site Preparation and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plans (3-4 sheets) ➢ Roadway, Channelization and Signing Plans (3-4 sheets) ➢ Intersection Plans and Details (4 sheets) ➢ Pedestrian detour plans (4 sheets) ➢ 18-20 Total Sheets Estimated (More sheets will be added as necessary to ensure plans comply with the WSDOT LAG Manual and the most current Local Agency PS&E checklist) 3.6. The Consultant will coordinate with Environmental and Utility Services for stormwater commitments and will prepare a Draft Technical Drainage Memo in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, current edition, as modified by the City of Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, current edition. City of Edmonds 5 KPG Psomas, Inc. Main St Overlay Project May 2023 Scope of Work Packet Pg. 115 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a Assumptions: ➢ Aerial, GIS, and Field visit measurements are adequate to layout the overlay limits and does not require survey basemapping and vertical datum values. ➢ Survey basemapping in Work Element 2 will be used for any ADA and intersection modifications. ➢ This project is assumed to be exempt from a formal WSDOT Channelization Plan set submittal. Work Element 3 Deliverables: ➢ Curb ramp assessment worksheet (PDF / BlueBeam) ➢ Identification of temporary construction easements or permanent right of way acquisition, if required. ➢ Submit WSDOT LAG Manual design matrix ➢ Submit auto turn analysis and exhibits for pedestrian curb ramb bulb -out designs. ➢ 30% Review Submittal: (1) — Half Size (11 "x17') Plans, electronic PDF/ BlueBeam, and (1) — Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate in accordance with City's estimating policy, electronic excel spreadsheet and PDF/ BlueBeam ➢ Draft Technical Drainage Memo (PDF / BlueBeam) WORK ELEMENT 4 — GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 4.1. The Consultant will support HWA GeoSciences for geotechnical report activities. The following geotechnical items will be performed by HWA GeoSciences: ➢ HWA GeoSciences will prepare a pavement memorandum based on the existing information collected for the City of Edmonds "Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project and an in -field visual assessment of the existing pavement conditions. There will be no additional borings. Prepare spreadsheet presenting results of field testing and provide and develop pavement section and rehabilitation recommendations. Work Element 4 Deliverables: ➢ Draft and Final Pavement Memorandum, including results of testing, pavement coring, reconstruction areas, and pavement design recommendations, (electronic, PDF) WORK ELEMENT 5 — STAKEHOLDER & AGENCY COORDINATION (NOT IDENTIFIED IN OTHER WORK ELEMENTS) 5.1. The Consultant will prepare and create graphics (estimate 3) and mailers for stakeholders along the corridor prior to Construction. It is assumed the City will be City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 116 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a responsible for reproduction and mailing of fliers/mailers and post graphics and verbiage provided to City hosted website and social media. 5.2. The consultant will attend one coordination meeting with WSDOT as well as incorporate and respond to their comments on Specifications and Maximum Extents Feasible documents. ➢ This project is assumed to be exempt from a formal WSDOT Channelization Plan set submittal. ➢ Traffic Control and Pedestrian Detour Plans will comply with WSDOT LAG manual requirements. ➢ No Open House will be provided as part of this Contract. Public outreach via mailers and social media updates will be provided by the City. ➢ Community transit outreach will be coordinated by the City. ➢ Emergency Services coordination will be coordinated by the City. Work Element 6 Deliverables: ➢ Graphics and verbiage for outreach fliers/mailers, web, social media (high resolution JPG format and word document) ➢ Meeting minutes from WSDOT coordination meetings WORK ELEMENT 6 — UTILITY COORDINATION 6.1. The Consultant will coordinate with the City of Edmonds and Franchise utilities for water meter, water valve, sewer manhole lids, and all other franchise utility lids and iron located within the roadway prism and/or ramp upgrades. Utility notifications will be distributed to the City's Utility Operations Division: ➢ Water ➢ Wastewater ➢ Stormwater The Consultant will coordinate and provide the City with 11 "xl 7" plans at each submittal, highlighted to show franchise utilities (including utility poles, support wires/anchors), to be distributed by the City PM at the monthly utility meeting and will incorporate adjustments and/or comments from franchise utilities into subsequent submittals. The Consultant will coordinate directly with PSE for electrical service, if needed. Franchise utilities in the corridor are: ➢ Snopud Power ➢ Snopud Gas ➢ Comcast ➢ Ziply ➢ WSDOT overhead fiber 6.2. The Consultant shall prepare a pothole plan and conflict matrix post 60% review submittal to be distributed to the Franchise Utilities for pothole requests and City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 117 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a additional information. The City will distribute hard copies and the request for pothole to the franchise utilities during the monthly utility meeting. 6.3. The Consultant will coordinate with the Utilities Operations Division to confirm stormwater approach and prepare draft and final Technical Drainage Memo in accordance with the City's Stormwater Addendum. Assumptions: ➢ APS will direct bill franchise utilities for potholes per existing Franchise Utility Agreements. City water and wastewater potholes will be paid for the City, to be included with KPG Psomas monthly invoice. Work Element 6 Deliverables: ➢ (5) -Half Size (11 "x17') Plans at 30% / 60% / 90% Submittal for each Franchise Utility (hard copy) ➢ (5) — Half -Size (11 "x17') Pothole Plans at 60% (one for each utility) ➢ Final Technical Drainage Memorandum (electronic PDF / BlueBeam) WORK ELEMENT 7 — FINAL DESIGN 7.1. The Consultant will prepare 60% Plans, Specifications and Estimate. The 60% Plans will incorporate comments from previous submittals, geotechnical findings, and environmental process, as applicable. At the 60% submittal, the Consultant will provide a consolidated Response to 30% City Comments worksheet. Plans will be formatted to provide sufficient detail for convenient field layout of all proposed facilities. City Standard Details and WSDOT Standard Plans will be supplemented with specific details as required. Plan information will include: ➢ Title and Index Sheet with a vicinity Map (1 Sheet) ➢ Legends, Abbreviations, Survey Control and General Notes (1 Sheet) ➢ Typical Sections and Details (2 sheets) ➢ Site Preparation and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plans (3-4 sheets) ➢ Roadway, Channelization, and Signing Plans (3-4 sheets) ➢ Intersection Plans and Details (4 sheets) ➢ Construction Phasing Plans (6-10 sheets) ➢ Traffic control and pedestrian detour plans (6-8 sheets) ➢ 26-34 Total Sheets Estimated (More sheets will be added as necessary to ensure plans comply with the WSDOT LAG Manual and the most current Local Agency PS&E checklist) 7.2. The Consultant will prepare 90% Plans, specifications, and Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate (in accordance with the City's estimating policy) for review by the City. Previous 60% comments from City, WSDOT, utility providers and other City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 118 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a stakeholders will be addressed and incorporated into the 90% submittal. The plans and specifications will comply with WSDOT LAG manual requirements. 7.3. The Consultant will prepare construction phasing and traffic control and pedestrian detour plans at 60% Review submittal. Updated construction phasing plans with City comments will be incorporated into the 90% Submittal package and subsequent submittals to be utilized as a basis of bid. 7.4. The Consultant will prepare Bid Set Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate. The 90% comments from the City, WSDOT, and other stakeholders will be addressed and incorporated into the Bid Set. 7.5. The Consultant will prepare draft and final Maximum Extent Feasibility (MEF) documentation for ADA facilities that do not meet ADA guidelines. Draft MEFs to be included at the 60% submittal review. Final MEFs will be included in the appendices of the Contract Document Specifications. 7.6. The Consultant shall have a senior engineer complete a field review and Quality Assurance/Quality Control on all reports, plans, specifications and estimates. The Consultant shall submit the qualifications of the proposed Senior Engineer to the City for review and acceptance. The Senior Engineer shall provide a signed statement to the City that they have completed a review at each submittal milestone. Assumptions: ➢ The City may require multiple bid schedules (stormwater, warranty or other utility work) based on available funding. ➢ The existing roadway profile and cross section will not be modified, no profile elevation sheets will be provided. ➢ There will be no signal modifications. ➢ For cost efficiency, ADA ramp layouts with detailed notations and plan elevation information will be provided at the 90% and subsequent submittals. ADA ramp layouts included in 60% submittal will show proposed improvement limits and appropriate grading information needed for plan and field review. ➢ Proposed design in between intersections will be limited to the roadway prism, back of curb to back of curb, and ADA curb ramp upgrades (no additional sidewalk or driveway upgrades will be included with this project). ➢ This project will not impact channelization within the WSDOT ROW and will be exempt from a WSDOT channelization plan. City will confirm with Local Programs prior to on -set of project NTP. Work Element 7 Deliverables: City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work 0 KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 119 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a ➢ 60% Submittal. Half-size (11 "x17') Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Construction Cost estimate (in accordance with the City's estimating policy), Electronic (PDF/BlueBeam). Comment Response Spreadsheet, Electronic (XLS) ➢ 90% Submittal: Half-size (11 "x17') Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Construction Cost estimate (in accordance with the City's estimating policy), Electronic (PDF/BlueBeam). Comment Response Spreadsheet, Electronic (XLS) ➢ 100% Check Set Submittal: Half-size (11 "x17') Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Construction Cost estimate (in accordance with the City's estimating policy), Electronic (PDFI BlueBeam). Comment Response Spreadsheet, Electronic (XLS) ➢ Contract Bid Documents: Half-size (11 "x17") Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Construction Cost estimate, Electronic (PDF / BlueBeam), uploaded to BXWA. Comment Response Spreadsheet, Electronic (XLS) ➢ Submit WSDOT most current WSDOT Local Programs PS&E checklist at all submittal milestones. ➢ Submit list of all proposed non-standard Division 1 special provisions for review by City and WSDOT HL&P. ➢ Senior Engineer QA/QC statement of review and approval for each design submittal. ➢ Bid quantity tabulations for each bid items per layout sheet for the 90% design submittal through the Final Bid Document submittal ➢ MEF documentation per City forms, Draft and Final (included in Contract WORK ELEMENT 8 — BID PHASE SERVICES AND SUPPORT 8.1. Consultant will assist the City Project Manager in advertisement of the contract documents. 8.2. Consultant will prepare addenda and respond to bidders questions relayed through the City. It is assumed that the Consultant will prepare up to two (2) addenda. The Consultant will not charge for work to prepare addenda if they are needed to correct or verify errors or omissions in the final plans and specifications. 8.3. The Consultant will prepare Conformed Documents (to include all Project Addenda) for the City to be provided to the Contractor. Work Element 8 Deliverables: ➢ Prepare responses for up to ten (10) bidder questions (incl. with Addenda) ➢ Prepare up to two (2) Addendum Packages. The Consultant will not charge for work to prepare addenda if they are needed to correct or verify errors or omissions in the final plans and specifications. ➢ Prepare Bid evaluation. The Consultant shall provide a comprehensive cost evaluation if the low bidder is 10% or more over the Engineer's estimate. ➢ Conformed Documents: (5) hard copies of half-size (11x17), Specifications, and (1) ➢ full-size (22x34) Bid Plans. City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work 10 KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 120 EXHIBIT A 7.6.a Management Reserve The City may require additional services of the Consultant in order to advance the project through final design, right of way, and construction. This work may include items identified in the current task authorizations as well other items, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: ➢ Additional survey for utilities (manhole and catch basin inverts) ➢ Additional design for sidewalk, stormwater, water main and service repair, traffic signal and illumination evaluation and design, and additional documentation for WSDOT Intersection Control Evaluation. ➢ Construction management and inspection services ➢ Record Drawings at construction closeout ➢ Right Of Way and/or Temporary Construction Easements At the time these services are required, the Consultant shall provide a detailed scope of work and an estimate of costs. The Consultant shall not proceed with the work until the City has authorized the work and issued a notice to proceed. City of Edmonds Main St Overlay Project Scope of Work 11 KPG Psomas, Inc. May 2023 Packet Pg. 121 7.6.a Exhibit B No DBE participation required. DBE Participation Agreement Number: Exhibit B - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 122 7.6.a Exhibit C Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and Other Dati In this Exhibit the agency, as applicable, is to provide a description of the format and standards the consultant is to use in preparing electronic files for transmission to the agency. The format and standards to be provided may include, but are not limited to, the following: I. Surveying, Roadway Design & Plans Preparation Section A. Survey Data Please see scope of work B. Roadway Design Files N/A C. Computer Aided Drafting Files N/A Agreement Number: Exhibit C - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 123 7.6.a D. Specify the Agency's Right to Review Product with the Consultant Agency retains the right to review all deliverables as stated in the Scope of Work and as indicated in the agreement. E. Specify the Electronic Deliverables to Be Provided to the Agency See Scope of Work F. Specify What Agency Furnished Services and Information Is to Be Provided See Scope of Work Agreement Number: Exhibit C - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 124 7.6.a IL Any Other Electronic Files to Be Provided See Scope of Work III. Methods to Electronically Exchange Data Email (15 GB Max) Pre -Approved Client or Consultant FTP/Online Exchange Site Exhibit C - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 125 7.6.a A. Agency Software Suite Microsoft Office B. Electronic Messaging System Microsoft Outlook C. File Transfers Format See Scope of Work Exhibit C - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 126 7.6.a Exhibit D See Attached: - Cost Computations - WSDOT Overhead Rate Letter - Rate Table Prime Consultant Cost Computation! Agreement Number: Exhibit D - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 127 7.6.a P S O M A S EXHIBIT A PRIME CONSULTANT COST COMPUTATIONS Client: City of Edmonds Project Name: Main St Ovsday KPG Psomas Inc. Project Number: Date: 5/16/2023 Task Description MLabor Hour Estimate C..t Computation. by Task Task 1 - Project Management ®• ®Management of subconsulWnts and teamSchedule Updates (2 Updates) ®• WSDOT DMCSIntyTask .. ®000000000000o0m 2 - Sumey, Mapping, and Existing Right of Way ® . Field Survey Note ®Reduction Survey Control Geotechnical Boring LocationsTask • 000000®0®0000000 3 - Preliminary Design Review EAsting Documents • 000000000000000� ...... Task 5 - Stakeholder and Agency Coordination ®- •- • ©000000000000000 Task 6 - Utility Coordination Drainage Ms.. .. 0©000000000000om Task 7 - Final Design PrI ®. , •..Prepare '=n Prepare M=D .. ®00�00000000000�Task 8 - Bid Phase Seryices and Support Prepare Conformed Documents .. 000®000000000000Task 9 Management Rose — Total Labor Hours and Fee 0®��00®0®000000�Subconsultants Q Packet Pg. 128 7.6.a AdElk Washington State w, Department of Transportation May 5, 2022 KPG, P.S. 3131 Elliott Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98121 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2021 ICR — CPA Report Dear Susan Rowe: Development Division Contract Services Office PO Box 47408 Olympia, WA 98504-7408 7345 Linderson Way SW Tumwater, WA 98501-6504 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov We have accepted your firms FYE 2021 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) of 173.37% (0.27% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) based on the "Independent CPA Report," prepared by Stambaugh Ness, Inc. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 705-7019 or via email consultantrates(a,wsdot.wa.gov. Regards; ERIK K. JONSON Contract Services Manager EKJ:ah Packet Pg. 129 KPG WJ-rZ-&0 7.6.a KPG Psomas Inc. Summary of Negotiated Costs Effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 Classification Estimated Salary Range Low Hi Est Direct Salary Costs (DSC) Office Overhead @173.37 % 1.7337 Of DSC Fee @ 27 % of DL 27 % of DSC 2023 Inclusive Rate (Rounded to $1) Principal 89 99 93.91 162.81 25.36 282 Engineering Manager 79 87 82.73 143.43 22.34 248 Senior Engineer 67 75 71.00 123.09 19.17 213 Senior Project Engineer 64 70 67.00 116.16 18.09 201 Project Engineer III 59 65 62.00 107.49 16.74 186 Project Engineer II 55 61 57.75 100.12 15.59 173 Project Engineer 1 47 51 49.00 84.95 13.23 147 Design Engineer 11 44 48 46.00 79.75 12.42 138 Design Engineer 1 42 46 44.00 76.28 11.88 132 Engineering Technician 36 40 37.69 65.34 10.18 113 Technician 32 35 33.60 58.26 9.07 101 Engineering Assistant 29 32 30.23 52.40 8.16 91 Senior Project Manager Survey 79 87 82.73 143.43 22.34 248 Survey Crew II (W/Equip) 81 90 85.78 148.72 23.16 258 Survey Crew I (W/Equip) 64 71 67.50 117.02 18.23 203 Field Surveyor 1 29 32 30.25 52.44 8.17 91 Field Surveyor 11 38 42 40.25 69.78 10.87 121 Field Surveyor III 45 50 47.75 82.78 12.89 143 Survey Assistant 29 32 30.25 52.44 8.17 91 Project Surveyor 51 57 54.00 93.62 14.58 162 Surveyor 1 29 32 30.00 52.01 8.10 90 Surveyor II 38 42 40.00 69.35 10.80 120 Surveyor 111 43 47 45.00 78.02 12.15 135 Urban Design Manager 63 69 66.02 114.46 17.83 198 Project Landscape Architect 48 54 51.00 88.42 13.77 153 Landscape Technician 32 35 33.48 58.04 9.04 101 Landscape Assistant 28 31 29.81 51.68 8.05 90 Senior Transportation Planner 59 66 62.50 108.36 16.88 188 Transportation Planner 36 39 37.54 65.08 10.14 113 Environmental Manager 72 72 72.12 125.03 19.47 217 Senior Archaelogist Graphic Artist/GIS Editor Word Processor / Clerical 55 53 30 39 55 53 30 39 55.46 52.89 29.99 39.18 96.15 91.70 51.99 67.93 14.97 14.28 8.10 10.58 167 159 90 118 Biologist 49 49 48.50 84.08 13.10 146 Environmental Planner 47 47 47.00 81.48 12.69 141 Senior Construction Manager 77 85 80.76 140.01 21.81 243 Construction Manager 58 64 61.00 105.76 16.47 183 Senior Resident Engineer 54 60 56.75 98.39 15.32 170 Resident Engineer 48 54 51.00 88.42 13.77 153 Assistant Resident Engineer 45 50 47.60 82.52 12.85 143 Senior Construction Observer 60 66 63.00 109.22 17.01 189 Construction Observer 111 44 50 47.00 81.48 12.69 141 Construction Observer 11 41 45 43.00 74.55 11.61 129 Construction Observer 1 33 37 35.00 60.68 9.45 105 Construction Technician 29 32 30.23 52.40 8.16 91 Document Control Specialist 11 45 49 47.00 81.48 12.69 141 Document Control Specialist 1 38 42 40.00 69.35 10.80 120 Document Control Admin 33 36 34.32 59.50 9.27 103 Construction Assistant 24 26 24.96 43.27 6.74 75 CAD Manager 56 62 59.39 102.97 16.04 178 Senior CAD Technician 43 48 45.34 78.61 12.24 136 CAD Technician 39 43 41.00 71.08 11.07 123 Business Manager 56 61 58.52 101.46 15.80 176 Senior Admin 42 46 44.00 76.28 11.88 132 Office Admin 32 36 34.00 58.95 9.18 102 Office Assistant 26 28 27.04 46.88 7.30 81 Subs billed at cost plus 5%. Reimbursables billed at actual costs. Mileage billed at the current approved IRS mileage rate. .r Q Packet Pg. 130 7.6.a Exhibit E Sub -consultant Cost Computation! If no sub -consultant participation at this time. The CONSULTANT shall not sub -contract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. Refer to section VI "Sub -Contracting" of this AGREEMENT. HWA - Geotechnical Report - $7,804 Agreement Number: Exhibit E - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 131 7.6.a Project Cost Estimate H W A Ref: 2023-061 Main Street - 6th Avenue S to 8th Avenue S HWAGEDSCIENCES INC Date: 11-May-23 Pavement Investigation Revised: 18-May-23 Edmonds, Washington Prepared by: BKH Scope of Work Project setup and coordination. Results of four previously performed pavement cores will be used to assess pavement thickness, no additional cores will be performed Perform visual assessment of pavement condition and identify areas that may require full -depth reconstruction. Perform engineering analyses related to pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction using traffic data provided by the City. Prepare report presenting the results of pavement coring and engineering recommendations. ESTIMATED HWA LABOR: WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL & 2023 DIRECT SALARY COSTS PrincipallX Geotechnical Engineer VIII Geolo ist VI Geolo ist IV Admin CAD Contracts TOTAL HOURS TOTAL AMOUNT $101.00 $87.50 $55.00 $46.00 $33.00 $32.50 $45.00 Project Setu /Coordination 2 2 4 $265 Perform Visual Assessment & Identify Reconstruction Areas 8 8 $700 Perform Engineering Analyses Related to Pavement Dean 4 4 $350 Prepare Report 8 4 12 $830 Consul tation/Pro'ectMan ement 2 21 $175 TOTAL DIRECT SALARY COSTS LABORATORY TEST SUM MARY: 24 Test Est. No. Tests Unit Cost Total Cost Grain Size Distribution 0 $130 $0 Atterberg Limits 0 $250 $0 LABORATORY TOTAL: $0 30 $2,320 ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES M i I eage I RS Rate $25 TCP Development $0 Traffic Control during Coring $0 Pavement Core Charge ($75/core) $0 Laboratory Testing $0 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES: $25 PROJECT TOTAL SAND SUM MARY: Total Direct Salary Cost (DSC) $2,320 Overhead on DSC at 208.31 % $4,833 Fixed Fee at 27% of DSC $626 Direct Expenses $25 GRAND TOTAL: $7,804 Notes/Assumptions 1. All costs are estimated, and may be increased or decreased within the limits of the total budget at the discretion of HWA's project manager 2. No Street Use Permits/ROW Use fees will be required. 2023-061 Edmonds Main St 05-18-23.xis Packet Pg. 132 7.6.a AdElk Washington State w, Department of Transportation July 22, 2022 HWA GeoSciences, Inc. 21312 301h Drive SE, Suite 110 Bothell, WA 98021 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2021 ICR — CPA Report Dear Vasiliy Babko: Development Division Contract Services Office PO Box 47408 Olympia, WA 98504-7408 7345 Linderson Way SW Tumwater, WA 98501-6504 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov We have accepted your firms FYE 2021 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) of 208.31% of direct labor (rate includes 0.22% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) based on the "Independent CPA Report," prepared by Thomas W Maxwell CPA. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 705-7019 or via email consultantrates(dwsdot.wa.gov. Regards; ERIK K. JONSON Contract Services Manager EKJ:ah Packet Pg. 133 7.6.a 243123oth Drive SE, Ste. no, Bothell, WA 98021-7010 U 1 GEOSCIENCIS INC, Phone: 423.774.0106 1 Fax:425.774.2714 OBE AE www,hwageoxom HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 2023 HOURLY AND BILLING RATES EMPLOYEE TITLE HOURLY Overhead Fixed Fee Billing RATE 2.0831 27.00% Rate Anna Ataman Administrative Support $30.00 $62.49 $8.10 $100.59 Stephanie Murphy Administrative Support $33.00 $68.74 $8.91 $110.65 Cathy Fry CAD $32.50 $67.70 $8.78 $108.98 Brian Menz CAD $45.00 $93.74 $12.15 $150.89 Vasiliy Babko Contracts Administrator $45.00 $93.74 $12.15 $150.89 Cierra Wilson Geologist II $31.00 $64.58 $8.37 $103.95 Richard Mueller Geologist II $31.00 $64.58 $8.37 $103.95 Isaac Wiken Geologist II $33.00 $68.74 $8.91 $110.65 Mary Alice Benson Geologist III $34.50 $71.87 $9.32 $115.68 Ayla Heinze Fry Geologist III $37.50 $78.12 $10.13 $125.74 Christian Bourgeois Geologist III $39.00 $81.24 $10.53 $130.77 Vincent Oskierko Geologist III $40.50 $84.37 $10.94 $135.80 Greg Krankurs Geologist IV $46.00 $95.82 $12.42 $154.24 Seth Pemble Geologist IV $46.00 $95.82 $12.42 $154.24 Nicole Kapise Geologist VI $50.00 $104.16 $13.50 $167.66 Bret Salazar Geologist VI $55.00 $114.57 $14.85 $184.42 Steve Greene Geologist VIII $85.00 $177.06 $22.95 $285.01 Lucas Cressler Geotechnical Engineer II $38.00 $79.16 $10.26 $127.42 Ahmed Mahmound Geotechnical Engineer II $40.00 $83.32 $10.80 $134.12 Will Rosso Geotechnical Engineer IV $50.00 $104.16 $13.50 $167.66 Shane Miller Geotechnical Engineer IV $53.00 $110.40 $14.31 $177.71 Dila Saidin Geotechnical Engineer V $56.00 $116.65 $15.12 $187.77 Ali Sirjani Geotechnical Engineer V $58.50 $121.86 $15.80 $196.16 Joseph Westergreen Geotechnical Engineer V $58.50 $121.86 $15.80 $196.16 Sean Schlitt Geotechnical Engineer V $58.50 $121.86 $15.80 $196.16 Michael Place Geotechnical Engineer VII $78.50 $163.52 $21.20 $263.22 Sandy Brodahl Geotechnical Engineer VII $80.00 $166.65 $21.60 $268.25 Bryan Hawkins Geotechnical Engineer VIII $87.50 $182.27 $23.63 $293.40 Donald Huling Geotechnical Engineer VIII $87.50 $182.27 $23.63 $293.40 JoLyn Gillie Geotechnical Engineer VIII $89.00 $185.40 $24.03 $298.43 Matthew Kalb Lab/Field Technician 1 $23.00 $47.91 $6.21 $77.12 Alex Forcos Lab/Field Technician 1 $24.00 $49.99 $6.48 $80.47 Nicholas Johnson Lab/Field Technician 111 $28.00 $58.33 $7.56 $93.89 Alex Hodges Lab/Field Technician 111 $30.50 $63.53 $8.24 $102.27 Daniel Walton Lab/Field Technician IV $45.00 $93.74 $12.15 $150.89 Kristin Nolan Lab/Field Technician IV $45.00 $93.74 $12.15 $150.89 Ralph Boirum Principal IX $101.00 $210.39 $27.27 $338.66 Sa Hong Principal IX $147.97 $308.24 $39.95 $496.16 Arnie Sugar Principal IX $93.00 $193.73 $25.11 $311.84 Notes: * Represents Capped Billing Rate Print date: 12/16/22 Packet Pg. 134 7.6.a Exhibit F - Title VI Assurances Appendix A & E APPENDIX A During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor (hereinafter includes consultants) will comply with the Acts and the Regulations relative to Non-discrimination in Federally -assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, (Title of Modal Operating Administration), as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract. 2. Non-discrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Acts and the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21. [Include Modal Operating Administration specific program requirements.] 3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the Acts and the Regulations relative to Non-discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. [Include Modal Operating Administration specific program requirements.] 4. Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Recipient or the (Title of Modal Operating Administration) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Acts, Regulations, and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the contractor will so certify to the Recipient or the (Title of Modal Operating Administration), as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of a contractor's noncompliance with the Non- discrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient will impose such contract sanctions as it or the (Title of Modal Operating Administration) may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: a. withholding payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies; and/or b. cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract, in whole or in part. 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs one through six in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Recipient or the (Title of Modal Operating Administration) may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation by a subcontractor, or supplier because of such direction, the contractor may request the Recipient to enter into any litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient. In addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States. g Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Agreement Numb Plus Fred Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112021 1 Packet Pg. 135 7.6.a Exhibit F - Title VI Assurances Appendix A & E APPENDIX E 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 et 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 the 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 USC § 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 II 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 Persons 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 that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX 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). Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Numb Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112021 1 Packet Pg. 136 7.6.a Exhibit G Certification Document: Exhibit G-1(a) Certification of Consultant Exhibit G-1(b) Certification of Exhibit G-2 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions Exhibit G-3 Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying Exhibit G-4 Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data Agreement Number: Exhibit G - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 021011 Packet Pg. 137 7.6.a Exhibit G-1(a) Certification of Consultant I hereby certify that I am the and duly authorized representative of the firm of KPG Psomas Inc. whose address is 3131 Elliott Ave, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98121 and that neither the above firm nor I have: a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure this AGREEMENT; b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out this AGREEMENT; or c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this AGREEMENT; except as hereby expressly stated (if any); I acknowledge that this certificate is to be furnished to the City of Edmonds and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal -aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. KPG Psomas Inc. Consultant (Firm Name) Signature (Authorized Official of Consultant) Date IL Y 3 c as E d L a� M c� a J w O 0 a a a Agreement Number: Exhibit G - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 02/01/ packet Pg. 138 Exhibit G-1(b) Certification of City of Edmonds 7.6.a I hereby certify that I am the: ❑i Certified Authority ❑ Other of the City of Edmonds , and KPG Psomas Inc. or its representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this AGREEMENT to: a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ to retain, any firm or person; or b) Pay, or agree to pay, to any firm, person, or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind; except as hereby expressly stated (if any): I acknowledge that this certificate is to be furnished to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal -aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Signature Date Agreement Number: Exhibit G - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 02/01 Packet Pg. 139 7.6.a Exhibit G-2 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions I. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals 0 0 A. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily L a excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; L d B. Have not within a three (3) year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgmer p> rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, v� attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State anti-trust statues or commission of embezzlement, 2 theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; L , ,o C. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity a (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and 3 D. Have not within a three (3) year period preceding this application / proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State and local) terminated for cause or default. L II. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. J 0 0 0 L 0. 0. KPG Psomas Inc. c Consultant (Firm Name) E m d L El N t) Signature (Authorized Official of Consultant) Date co Agreement Number: Exhibit G -Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 02101 Packet Pg. 140 7.6.a Exhibit G-3 Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her 0 knowledge and belief, that: Q a 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any 2 person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any employee of a Member of Congress in connection 0 with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan c the entering into of any cooperative AGREEMENT, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative AGREEMENT. z 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress ,o an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Y Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative AGREEMENT, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 3 This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction c E was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into 2 this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required M certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000.00, and not more than $100,000.00, a for each such failure. J 0 The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require > that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier sub -contracts, which exceed $100,000, ° a and that all such sub -recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. a c as E KPG Psomas Inc. as Consultant (Firm Name) w m m co c 0 Signature (Authorized Official of Consultant) Date y Agreement Number: Exhibit G -Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 02101 Packet Pg. 141 7.6.a Exhibit H Liability Insurance Increas( To Be Used Only If Insurance Requirements Are Increased a The professional liability limit of the CONSULTANT to the AGENCY identified in Section XII, Legal Relations and Insurance of this Agreement is amended to $ N/A o0' The CONSULTANT shall provide Professional Liability insurance with minimum per occurrence limits in the amount of $ N/A Such insurance coverage shall be evidenced by one of the following methods: • Certificate of Insurance. ,o • Self-insurance through an irrevocable Letter of Credit from a qualified financial institution. a Y Self-insurance through documentation of a separate fund established exclusively for the payment of professional liability claims, including claim amounts already reserved against the fund, safeguards established for payment 3 from the fund, a copy of the latest annual financial statements, and disclosure of the investment portfolio for those funds. a� L Should the minimum Professional Liability insurance limit required by the AGENCY as specified above exceed M $1 million per occurrence or the value of the contract, whichever is greater, then justification shall be submitted a to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval to increase the minimum insurance limit. J 0 If FHWA approval is obtained, the AGENCY may, at its own cost, reimburse the CONSULTANT for the additional > professional liability insurance required. 0 `0. a Notes: Cost of added insurance requirements: $ N/A a • Include all costs, fee increase, premiums. • This cost shall not be billed against an FHWA funded project. L • For final contracts, include this exhibit. Q N/A Agreement Number: Exhibit H - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 142 7.6.a Exhibit I Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedure: 2 The purpose of this exhibit is to establish a procedure to determine if a consultant's alleged design error is of a a nature that exceeds the accepted standard of care. In addition, it will establish a uniform method for the resolution and/or cost recovery procedures in those instances where the agency believes it has suffered some material damage due to the alleged error by the consultant. 0 Step 1 Potential Consultant Design Error(s) is Identified by Agency's Project Manager c At the first indication of potential consultant design error(s), the first step in the process is for the Agency's project manager to notify the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer regarding the potential design error(s). For federally funded projects, the Region Local Programs Engineer should be informed and c involved in these procedures. (Note: The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer may appoint an '~ agency staff person other than the project manager, who has not been as directly involved in the project, Y to be responsible for the remaining steps in these procedures.) Step 2 Project Manager Documents the Alleged Consultant Design Error(s) After discussion of the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged error(s), and with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer's concurrence, the project manager obtains more detailed documentation than is normally required on the project. Examples include: all decisions and descriptions of work; photographs, records of labor, materials and equipment. Step 3 Contact the Consultant Regarding the Alleged Design Error(s) a J c If it is determined that there is a need to proceed further, the next step in the process is for the project manager to contact the consultant regarding the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged o error(s). The project manager and other appropriate agency staff should represent the agency and the a consultant should be represented by their project manager and any personnel (including sub -consultants) -- deemed appropriate for the alleged design error(s) issue. Step 4 Attempt to Resolve Alleged Design Error with Consultant E i After the meeting(s) with the consultant have been completed regarding the consultant's alleged design Q error(s), there are three possible scenarios: a • It is determined via mutual agreement that there is not a consultant design error(s). If this is the case, then the process will not proceed beyond this point. in It is determined via mutual agreement that a consultant design error(s) occurred. If this is the case, then the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, or their representatives, negotiate a settlement with the consultant. The settlement would be paid to the agency or the amount would be reduced from the consultant's agreement with the agency for the services on the project in which the design error took place. The agency is to provide LP, through the Region Local Programs Engineer, a summary of the settlement for review and to make adjustments, if any, as to how the settlement affects federal reimbursements. No further action is required. • There is not a mutual agreement regarding the alleged consultant design error(s). The consultant may request that the alleged design error(s) issue be forwarded to the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer for review. If the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, after review with their legal counsel, is not able to reach mutual agreement with the consultant, proceed to Step 5. Agreement Number: Exhibit I - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 143 7.6.a Step 5 Forward Documents to Local Programs For federally funded projects all available information, including costs, should be forwarded through the Region Local Programs Engineer to LP for their review and consultation with the FHWA. LP will meet with representatives of the agency and the consultant to review the alleged design error(s), and attempt to find a resolution to the issue. If necessary, LP will request assistance from the Attorney General's Office for legal interpretation. LP will also identify how the alleged error(s) affects eligibility of project costs for federal reimbursement. • If mutual agreement is reached, the agency and consultant adjust the scope of work and costs to reflect the agreed upon resolution. LP, in consultation with FHWA, will identify the amount of federal participation in the agreed upon resolution of the issue. • If mutual agreement is not reached, the agency and consultant may seek settlement by arbitration or by litigation. Agreement Number: Exhibit I - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 144 7.6.a Exhibit J Consultant Claim Procedure! The purpose of this exhibit is to describe a procedure regarding claim(s) on a consultant agreement. The following a procedures should only be utilized on consultant claims greater than $1,000. If the consultant's claim(s) are a total of $1,000 or less, it would not be cost effective to proceed through the outlined steps. It is suggested that the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the consultant's claim(s) 0 that total $1,000 or less. in This exhibit will outline the procedures to be followed by the consultant and the agency to consider a potential c 2 claim by the consultant. z Step 1 Consultant Files a Claim with the Agency Project Manager L .° If the consultant determines that they were requested to perform additional services that were outside c9 Y of the agreement's scope of work, they may be entitled to a claim. The first step that must be completed is the request for consideration of the claim to the Agency's project manager. 3 The consultant's claim must outline the following: c E • Summation of hours by classification for each firm that is included in the claim; d a, • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; M a • Timeframe of the additional work that was outside of the project scope; c • Summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable costs associated with > the additional work; and a • Explanation as to why the consultant believes the additional work was outside of the agreement Q. a scope of work. Step 2 Review by Agency Personnel Regarding the Consultant's Claim for Additional Compensation a� 0 After the consultant has completed step 1, the next step in the process is to forward the request to the Agency's project manager. The project manager will review the consultant's claim and will met with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer to determine if the Agency agrees with the claim. If the FHWA is participating in the project's funding, forward a copy of the consultant's claim and the Agency's recommendation for federal participation in the claim to the WSDOT Local Programs through the Region Local Programs Engineer. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. If the Agency project manager, Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, WSDOT Local Programs (if applicable), and FHWA (if applicable) agree with the consultant's claim, send a request memo, including backup documentation to the consultant to either supplement the agreement, or create a new agreement for the claim. After the request has been approved, the Agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. No further action in needed regarding the claim procedures. If the Agency does not agree with the consultant's claim, proceed to step 3 of the procedures. Agreement Number: Exhibit J - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 145 7.6.a Step 3 Preparation of Support Documentation Regarding Consultant's Claim(s) If the Agency does not agree with the consultant's claim, the project manager shall prepare a summary for the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer that included the following: 0 • Copy of information supplied by the consultant regarding the claim; 2 a • Agency's summation of hours by classification for each firm that should be included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; L o • Agency's summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable costs associated with the additional work; S • Explanation regarding those areas in which the Agency does/does not agree with the consultant's 2 claim(s); • Explanation to describe what has been instituted to preclude future consultant claim(s); and 0 • Recommendations to resolve the claim. a Y Step 4 Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer Reviews Consultant Claim and Agency Documentation 3 The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall review and administratively approve or disapprove c E the claim, or portions thereof, which may include getting Agency Council or Commission approval (as L appropriate to agency dispute resolution procedures). If the project involves federal participation, obtain M concurrence from WSDOT Local Programs and FHWA regarding final settlement of the claim. If the claim a is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. J 0 Step 5 Informing Consultant of Decision Regarding the Claim > The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall notify (in writing) the consultant of their final 0 L a decision regarding the consultant's claim(s). Include the final dollar amount of the accepted claim(s) -- and rationale utilized for the decision. 5 Step 6 Preparation of Supplement or New Agreement for the Consultant's Claim(s) The agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. Agreement Number: Exhibit J - Local Agency A&E Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Revised 0210112 Packet Pg. 146 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Action 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 Architectural Design Board (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 RS 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 ADB and Planning Board spent several meetings discussing potential language for a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283 at several meetings. The ADB made recommendations to the Planning Board at their February 23 regular and March 8 special meetings, which was followed by a Planning Board public hearing to make a recommendation to City Council. Minutes for these meetings and a detailed summary of the ADB and Planning Board recommendations are included in the May 16 City Council meeting packet, while videos of the discussions are available on the city website. Packet Pg. 147 8.1 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 in the May 16 packet. The subgroup identified four goals for the interim ordinance: 1. Provide transitions 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. The subcommittee 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). The subcommittee recommended Option 4, and Board Member Mitchell prepared architectural renderings (Attachment 3) that show the following: 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 subcommittee 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 Packet Pg. 148 8.1 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 subcommittee 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 subcommittee, which would: 1. 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; 2. For buildings over 55' in height adjacent or across the street from RS zones, maintain the 10' 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 4. 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 recommended by the Planning Board 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 City Council was supportive of the Planning Board's recommendation to create 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). Council also 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). On May 16, Council held the required public hearing for the Type V code amendment. Two additional comments were received (a link to the May 16 video is provided) and neither objected to the proposed code revisions for step backs and design review processes. A related question was raised by Council on May 16, based on previous Planning Board discussion, about mailed project notices. The code currently requires project notices to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. There was a question about whether that was a sufficient distance from a project site and whether 400 feet or 500 feet would be more appropriate for projects in the CG zone that are adjacent or across the street from RS zones. Staff ran two simulations in its geographic information system (GIS) for expanded notice for a project in the CG zone and another for a project in the RS-12 zone for comparison. In general, expanding the notification radius to 400 feet for projects near RS zones resulted in an approximately 60% increase in property owner mailings while expanding the notification radius to 500 feet resulted in an approximately 100% increase (doubling) in mailings. Packet Pg. 149 8.1 In the CG simulation: 300-foot notice captured 50 parcels (the current requirement) 400-foot notice captured 81 parcels 500-foot notice captured 96 parcels In the RS-12 simulation: 300-foot notice captured 51 parcels (the current requirement) 400-foot notice captured 81 parcels 500-foot notice captured 109 parcels Staff has included draft language in Attachment 2 requiring 500-foot notice for projects in the CG zone in ECDC 20.03.002.D and referenced that section in ECDC 20.12.010.B. While increasing the distance of mailed notice will result in more project notices being mailed, Council should consider whether having separate standards for Type II -A design review in the CG zone is equitable when compared to other Type II through IV land use applications, all of which have a 300 foot mailing requirement. It should also be noted that mailed notice is only one of the ways that notice about a project is provided to the public. Public notices are also posted at the project site as well as at City Hall, the Public Safety Complex, and Edmonds Sno-Isle Library. Notice is also published in the Everett Herald and included on the City's website. Staff Recommendation A revised stFok g;/underline version of the draft permanent ordinance is included as Attachment 2, including the new language expanding the mailing notification radius to 500 feet. Council is asked to discuss any additional changes, deliberate, and then proceed to a decision. Voting to approve the language in Attachment 2 would replace interim Ordinance 4283 in its entirety with the language in Attachment 2. Voting to deny the language (as proposed or with modifications) in Attachment 2 would mean that interim Ordinance 4283 remains in place until June 10, 2023, when it expires. If interim Ordinance 4283 expires, the current General Commercial zone code for step backs (adjacent to but not across the street from) and design process (Type I staff decision with no public notice) would remain in place. 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 StFikethreug4 underline text in Attachment 2: 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 20.01.003.13 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, Packet Pg. 150 8.1 rather than also describing that the step backs are not required for buildings less than 55 feet tall. Attachments: Attachment 1- Ordinance 4283 emergency interim CG design review and step backs Attachment 2 - Draft permanent ordinance to replace interim Ordinance 4283 Attachment 3 - Renderings comparing ADB and PB Working Group Recommendations Attachment 4 - Planning Board Recommendation Attachment 5 - Public Comments 2.7.23 to 4.27.23 opt Attachment 6 - May 16 Council Presentation May 2, 2023 City Council meeting video May 16, 2023 City Council meeting video HB 1293 Bill Report Packet Pg. 151 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 Py,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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.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 8.1.b CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND RELATED PROCEDURES FOR CG ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONED PROPERTIES AND REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4283 amended the development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in August 2017 via Ordinance 4078; and WHEREAS, prior to Ordinance 4283, the Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) in October 2022, which contained required step back language; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4278 was ultimately repealed, but the concept of requiring step backs for buildings across the street from RS zones was carried forward as part of Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and ADB spent several meetings discussing potential language for a permanent ordinance to replace interim Ordinance 4283, the dates of which are set forth in the agenda memo that accompanies this ordinance; and WHEREAS, after deliberating various options on April 26, 2023, the Planning Board unanimously approved a motion to recommend an option that would: 1. 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; 2. For buildings over 55' in height adjacent or across the street from RS zones, maintain the 10' 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; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the Council reviewed and discussed the Planning Board's recommendation for permanent language to replace interim Ordinance 4283; and Packet Pg. 169 8.1.b WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the Council held the required public hearing for the Type V code amendment and discussed whether the public notice mailing requirements should be expanded for projects that are adjacent to or across the street from RS zones; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 16.60 ECDC, entitled "CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfikethr-oug ). Section 2. Section 20.01.003 ECDC, entitled "Permit type and decision framework," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 3. Section 20.03.002 ECDC, entitled "Notice of application," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 4. Chapter 20.12 ECDC, entitled "DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 5. 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 6. 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. Packet Pg. 170 8.1.b APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 171 8.1.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 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 OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND RELATED PROCEDURES FOR CG ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONED PROPERTIES AND REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2023. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 172 ATTACHMENT A 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. 173 ATTACHMENT A 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. 174 ATTACHMENT A 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. 175 ATTACHMENT A 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. 176 ATTACHMENT A 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. 177 ATTACHMENT A 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. 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. 178 ATTACHMENT A v a c m @ u •c ++ �n d 41 qr N v o a nN t1N r, q T 4 N -,L Ya mn, f 5--t4r* 16'-2"41 Nofe_ Numenrdl Rdnges for the Pedeslridrtlone dnd the At tivity zone dre lypic& but donor 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. 179 ATTACHMENT A - j 101_01, ' r`-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - -�- -- - - - --- ------------- - - ---- -- ------------ - - -- CG ZONE 55' BUILDING (NO STEPBACKS REQUIRED) ----------------------- CG ZONE 75BUILDING (57EP13ACKS REQUIREDI 10' STEPBACK 0 25' 30- STEPBACK @ 55' Packet Pg. 180 ATTACHMENT A (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. 181 ATTACHMENT A 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 grille that is 25 percent opaque; or Packet Pg. 182 ATTACHMENT A iii. Grille 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 Planning and Development 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. 183 ATTACHMENT A 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. 184 ATTACHMENT A 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. 185 ATTACHMENT A 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 Planning and Development 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 Planning and Development 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. 186 ATTACHMENT A Planning and Development 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 Planning and Development 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 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. 187 ATTACHMENT A 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. 188 ATTACHMENT A 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. 189 ATTACHMENT A 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. 190 ATTACHMENT A b , ■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all v irrdcws and glass doers, bait nW rnirrored 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. 191 ATTACHMENT A viii. Medallions. ix. Artwork or wall graphics. x. Vertical differentiation. xi. 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. 192 ATTACHMENT A 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. 193 ATTACHMENT A 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 pursuant to ECDC development 20.12.010.B.2 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 c 0 Q c 0 .y a� M 00 N m U c M c �a L O E �L c W 0 a am L 0 am U c R c =a L 0 c as 0 E a`) a 0 L N c W E z U r Q c a� E U 0 Q Packet Pg. 194 ATTACHMENT A 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 open record open decision examiner or hearing which makes which makes 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 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS I 20.03.002 Notice of application. A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided by the director to the public, all city departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project permit applications in accordance with this chapter. The notice of application for these permits shall also be provided to the public by posting, publishing and mailing. B. Issuance of Notice of Application. 1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Packet Pg. 195 ATTACHMENT A 2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 days prior to the open record hearing. C. Contents. The notice of application shall include the following information in a format determined by the director: 1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application; 2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under Chapter 36.70B RCW; 3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the city at that time; 4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; 5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period, which shall be not less than 14 days following the date of notice of application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and (c) any appeal rights; 6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled when the date of notice of application is issued. For Type II-B processes, the notice shall provide information regarding the process for requesting a public hearing in accordance with the applicable Type II-B permit application; 7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the director's threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of application D. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to: 1. The owners of the property involved if different from applicant; and 2. The owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the application (the distance is extended to 500 feet for Type II -A design review applications in the General Commercial zone). Addresses for a mailed notice required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax records. The adjacent property owners list must be current to within six months of the date of initial application. Packet Pg. 196 ATTACHMENT A 3. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements for mailed notice of filing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall also include the following: a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities; b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county officials; c. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway shall be given to the Secretary of Transportation; 4. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as provided in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail. E. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city's official newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified in Chapter 1.03 ECC). The format shall be determined by the director and the notice must contain the information listed in subsection (C) of this section. F. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of one or more notice boards as follows: 1. A single notice board shall be placed: a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise directed by the director for maximum visibility; b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director; c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet above grade; and d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians. e. The size of the notice board shall be determined by the director. Packet Pg. 197 ATTACHMENT A 2. Additional notice boards may be required when: a. The site does not abut a public road; b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice. 3. Notice boards shall be: a. Maintained in good condition during the notice period; b. In place at least 14 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at least 14 days prior to the end of any required comment period; c. Removed within 30 days of the date of the project decision, unless the decision is appealed. If the project decision is appealed, the sign must be removed 30 days after the appeal decision is issued. 4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for the specified time period. G. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in response to the notice of application must be received by the city's Planning and Development department by 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible. 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. Packet Pg. 198 ATTACHMENT A 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 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 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 Packet Pg. 199 ATTACHMENT A 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. Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process J +os uti�at 6�.ign €.r.dewti� NY#w]Fnl a179 P4tlC hjyiYJhYStl ihh'IM +¢jrYMltl \IFa 4'q tevFi$ `4i.'q L'GUq^ •. Gy IH" a, 1 CW";AL ai I I ft ftw I +Py dYW [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.010 Applicability. Daa+oa oea�pn 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. Packet Pg. 200 ATTACHMENT A 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. 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. Specific mailed notice requirements are provided in ECDC 20.03.002.D.2. 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. Packet Pg. 201 ATTACHMENT A 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. 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. Packet Pg. 202 ATTACHMENT A 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. 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, Packet Pg. 203 ATTACHMENT A 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 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: Packet Pg. 204 ATTACHMENT A 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 class ification(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]. 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 and (C,2) 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. 205 ATTACHMENT A 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. 206 MOW. _IIII III__II■_ _1ol ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■� #� Illlilll I I f lulll11 I I I F fl10 I I 1111110 II OII iil�l I IIIC IIII IIIII IIN I 11 i IIII mill ■■ ■■ ■ ■K MEJIM SIMON .3�.- poll go _ - W_.___ -ZI -� 1■ �■ IN y I ■■ 1■ ■■ IN « �� _ n ■ ■+ + F V 0 c) - r + ram.. a i J 4t S J •4..a ,w 4 i tit - _ ■ 1 - I —F INN MINIM ------ ► .klk ii► jl.. ...� s 1 I 1 I 1 1 - 15 - • Sidewalk - ■ � ■■ No Hism" ■E cz ,nip 11 ILI, 11 IN.. ■■ ■■ No ME Mrs ■■ W■■J 11 ILI -NOR 11 Is ■■ No ■■ as Ma Was -�� T 1111 11 ■■ 1� t1 � �� 1■ �� 1■ � - � [ri[ II■ IIIIIIIIII♦ III■ •wFYm WEE t=M=I mom W L l ��`.. 1■ IN 1 �■ ' • FplgJr i� kk I-_- � � � � � � I 9�' wT r • Emil �■ I� Y ► --- _ _ 6 8 11 11 08 6 7 - - 15- • Sidewalk Romp LJlannina Board recommendation (For Buildinas Across the ► ANIML ..6. 5 6 11 11 7 15 • Sidewalk F Y ■■ ■■ 'IN ■l I NO . I : � 1111� 1111111111111 � ■ � �; ■� �� Plot IN JR, I 1■ 1■ 1 ■■ I ICI III In INI it II NII II�ICII IIII I IIII II IIn IIIII 1 :111I11111 Ill — - 11Firm 6 MIN I I Ylj ILyyJI .h e _ F Yrryyr - "r �- I N SIGN - - A_ I I Nil � ■ ■ �., � � .■ � ■ . ' `'_ -- - " — __. � � ICI MT tANE LANE West 7 6 12 11 11 2 9 2 11 11 12 1 6 7 2 East - - 15 12 57 12 15 I Sidewalk Transit Travel Lanes Transit Sidewalk 15 84 15 i W. Roadside Curb to Curb E. Roadside 1111 Ill � 1111� Ill � 111 � f11 � ill 11 01111h111 ni'l 1111111111111111111 1111111111114 ril IIIli III IMIN r. Ill Ill 'fill mill IIIIdIIIIP'!I ._ 111111111111111 1111111111111118 A H_ • + _ ru w •�� � '�-!,� _Lp _ nib• � ��900 •�}. �1 � � IIII ■ F 1 �� � 2 ,r. YYi IYF I Y Y~ioi .IZ 1� i1saY YFi F�1''�� - w_ �� • 1 �I 900 .SIGN SIGN ' fleet•lot abb I� n�` v •f- . ► BAT I t 1 I I BAT di ;�•,!_;' � LANE I 1 I 1 LANE 1 12 11 11 _ 29 2 11 11 12 1 6 7 2 East 15 12 57 12 15 Sidewalk Transit Travel Lanes Transit Sidewalk 15 84 15 W. Roadside Curb to Curb E. Roadside 1�1 1■1 �1�' II■1 it N !ICIIIII IIII i I ICI n1'ir m �I I�� - IIIII Ilk WENNER 1qrl1 IR111, will - - - '1 -•--^ :-.ems PF �I III Ill 111 _ •oar iYi NY rr rY iYil 4ar N4 ,W x ire r_4 a a- _ M_ 900 /{yam' .., .11 IRE I Ilk, BAT BAT LANE 1 ! 1 I � I LANE - - - West 7 i 12 11 11 2 9 2 11 11 12 1 6 7 2 East 15 12 57 12 15 Sidewalk Transit Travel Lanes Transit Sidewalk 15 84 15 W. Roadside Curb to Curb E. Roadside n H. 8.1.d 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. 208 8.1.e 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. 209 8.1.e 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. 210 8.1.e 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. 211 8.1.e 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. 212 8.1.e 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. 213 8.1.e 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. 214 8.1.e 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. 215 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 8.1.e 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) • xxolr. s! sw 212rn s! sw 220th S- SW 224th k 5W R 228kr. S, SW Lry rya 230Ch St sw I Aliernalive 1 232nd 5Development Types r�� ^J 4Vl Mined Use office 4 J �411 Mixed lJsa Residential 2_a,n Stt s r 111 a III 35tary Aparlwnt Aw cw! 2380. St SW i J_• ... 240lh at Sw i 1 I sw fA I, 2—ln 5[SW FIGURE 17: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MIXED USE) L7. I �I I � sl WE, , �r 22othstsw�! W` 3 I .rr 22dth St SW ` J r RM228lh $i5W ti 23oth st sw Ai preferred Al to r na tile: - A I Development Types ." 232nd St SW J •, r ail mixed Vsa rawer 23dm 5! sw I B9 3 ■ 511 Mined Vsa Residential I wry went A 6 2361r• St sw � � = f] •- 23&, sr sw i 240rn st sw ■ I _ 2az�a sr sw �� 291lh 5t 5W 47 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 216 IMPLEMENTATION 8.1.e 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. 217 IMPLEME 8.1.e w- 2201h St JI. 224[h 51 '. r F 99 ' 230th St Sw� 232 nd 515Y4f 2361h SS $ i7 '; j _ -- Sw ' xaxna St svu� � - --- 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 220th St r_Sft 224th 51' z24tn St 2a41hsc5W i�IRWIN, ' 'r i __ 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. 218 8.1.e 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. 219 8.1.e 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. 220 8.1.e 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. 221 8.1.e 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. 222 8.1.e 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. 223 8.1.e 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. 224 8.1.e 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. 225 8.1.e 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. 226 8.1.e • 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. 227 8.1.e 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. 228 8.1.e 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. 229 8.1.e 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. 230 8.1.e 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. 231 8.1.e 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. 232 8.1.e 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. 233 8.1.e 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. 234 8.1.e • 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. 235 8.1.e Attachment 1: Park Area Comparative Analysis 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 236 8.1.e 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. $0.5M) 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 237 8.1.e Attachment 2: Consideration of Growth and Development ASK: I am providing this information in support of the development of a multi -cultural community center serving the SR99 community (ref: stakeholder outreach with the Korean Community Services Center, Pg. 206) The Draft PROS plan and CFP would benefit from additional consideration of growth and development in relationship to Objective 2.1: Address accessibility barriers (socio-economic, language, physical, geographic, transportation) to parks and programs and allocate resources to address known gaps and anti -displacement strategies. The consideration of growth and development is inherent in development of the Parks and Recreation element: "Level of service standards should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to factors influenced by growth and development, to allow for counties and cities to more clearly identify the impact on the demand for park facilities resulting from new development" (WAC 365-196-440). Growth and Development should be a key consideration in the CFP. There was not sufficient information provided in the Draft PROS plan to illuminate where growth currently proposed within the City (see map from Slide 12 of the buildable lands report presentation provided to the Planning Board on 13 October 2021— Edmonds Pending shown in blue). This map does not include issued land use applications like GRE Apartments (193 New Residential Units). There is significant growth already approved and targeted to the SR99 corridor. Edmonds GSy Boundary wmoms WL&A Edmonds Rrkbng Short Hat - Fd meal Hat M MuRl-family Mwd-use 3.1' 1_41 r 3 30 =4 `'f f a�Ca.r.r�w+�h'M�ps CaV�b�RIXs.i�ioF a�IXN�M. K 4C-ItY. WA sP�4 us Ei. C r4Wi E.6 NFRE Girn:rt SaTeG�h IYCPEM if'A MET4HFSA LWS gr. M Fine Mria3.rrertt. EPA NRS US Cc ug &mean. USDA 5vu�ces. Bn Arous DS. V.In MA NA_%CGA0. RWmmn MCE N A_. N15 OS NMA Cropatr, inlswR Rjk—e . G$A iy.Ww4 FEMA. In — amtky C�5 —.vrrrru V 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 238 8.1.e 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. 239 8 1. 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. 240 8.1.e 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. 241 8.1.e 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. 242 8.1.e Example of Across -the -Street Transition a 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. 243 8.1.e 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. 244 8.1.e • 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. 245 Theresa Hollis 8.1.e Edmonds resident Photo credit: PlannerDan location: Vancouver B.C. Packet Pg. 246 8.1.e 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. 247 8.1.e ? © Go Back to Topic Selection Envimnmental Health Ad Rank Disparities V 2.0 6 Environmental Id l' 7 -- Exposures Diesel Exhaust PM2.5 1.111 $ Emissions Ozone Concentration .hl 2 PM2,5 Concentration 1.111 7 Proximity to Heavy Traffic .Id ■ Roadways Toxic Releases from Facilities .hl 6 (RSEI 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. 248 8.1.e Issues Summary Extensive oavine and lack of tree canoov High-speed, heavy traffic arterial with few safe pedestrian or vehicle crossings ii CIS _ Lack of sidewalks onside 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 spot - Aging buildings in poor or below average condition Y' Burned -out building - Large underntlllzed Site Vacant parcels _ Oversized W5170T-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. 249 8.1.e 9—+, AW AV AVAV �A r o c LU cow AV Ti", AV �o AV AVAV AV � 00 M4� l w � A i -,c v C.- a F' C z %J1 a MAIN $L apr I c A i i MW A A' � fl$TFJ s � � s i A' AW i s Iff 12TH W AV c x BoW1)011V wgyAr i A'' ' s i i I APP i / s IA' A' Iff A' AW AF I A' i i i AW i AW Iff AV J�OTH ST SW A' / s Highway;99 AW a s 3 / 3i � 3 � s w AV Iff 10 c � ' / AV AV° AAV � PH WAV c 21&TH ST SW A y estgate s AV Ar AV AVD AV AV I AV AV I Imo' �LG A e AV AV AV AV Aff AV i I AV AV AV '"ff �� i � 38TH I �( A' � � AV AV AV AV �35TH PL SW ` IIff i Firdale rM PIff � 'ff Iff Iff A ° Iff A c iff 44TH ST SW � AV AV 2AV AV _ 244T i AV G u s Active 2021 Sales Business Area Tax ID's Tax Mean Tax Downtown 313 $519,777 $1,661 Total 2021 Sales Tax $10,568, c Westgate 59 $217,957 $3,694 Total 2021 Addressed Sales Tax $2,811,1 E Five Corners 15 $20,707 $1,380 Total 2021 Business District $2,674,i Firdale Village 9 $7,903 $878 a Perrinville 10 $13,027 $1,303 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 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. 250 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■ MEADo w %- v r a <F r, FgCy RO mm 176TH ST SW Mqti A I jo mo l VAY ligg ■ ORR 220TH ST SW 3 3.W � I��y a L CD 00 CD r i 228TH ST SW f r t � y ■ a� r 9LF o� 168TFRI FH ST SW ar . � x a C- 0 x .o v 188TH ST'. 10 TSW L a _it - -?6TH PL r IID �F III a TH ST S\ x Packet Pg. 251~ 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 8.1.e w 168TH ST a ME4pO x �z 10 O � 9� 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 �Q a' a 3 � wa a =3 qa 200TH ST z o $186,549 $2W00 � 204TH ST SAPWT-42 PPWT $924,00040��WT60$937,000 PWT-18 $32,8700 P-5 3-7-73010$3z0,860 208TH ST SW $T-MAIN ST 33 $2,894,000PWT-51lid PW74,623 $628,6 PWT $35762,2 $265,000 0 PWD-02 `PWT-6 w 0 PWW-09 212TH ST Sw 0 PWD-01 $1,50,00 0,000 PWT-12$45,015,000$270,4 wDOIN$3,290,000 PWT-45 � :A/T-37 1,54�88000�$20,072,000 iffl T-48 PWT-16w 3 a,4O -40 50Y -3 $9P00PW220TH ST SW $324,098,00 4$871• PWT-19 A.- PWT-55 Lu $788,000 3 41,001,0PWT-11 PWT-20_ 0 9{- o H x �35,242,000 0 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 SW PWT-15 0 PWT-14 n PWT-21 PWT-20 $241,02900 $38,142,000 " $1 389,00 PWT- . 365,000 - PWT-47 pWT-20 $zo, v,000 0 $1,060,000 PWT-30 $790,00o PWT-09 _PWT-06 $1, 94,000 `PWT-3WIT 3T PWT 31,00o PWS-11 TH ST S� 50,00o pWT 06 $850,00 PWT-23 �32,000PWT-50✓$1,z 5,000 $3 ,,50 $550,000 PWD-06 PWT-10 "PWD-07 F9L� ` I $6,000,000 Packet Pg. 252 8.1.e 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 3 AM> a �f�6TH ST'. 200TH ST x 0 _ 204TH ST S%A 2�8TH ST SW Packet Pg. 253 Percent Non -White 0 1% - 13% 14% - 31% 32% - 47% 48% - 67% - 68% - 100% z 4 z w o w M > 10 Mimi rl L V d 0 BO ST LU a 8.1.e 3 ST Sl Packet Pg. 254 City of Edmonds 2021 Residential Property Value 11 wool .r ..1 ■1 •11 �_-� Mill Fr r P I i l 1-, /4 —��II _� L-� '-�• I Tt..�� �J I ML s 1 r -T 8.1.e 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. 256 8.1.e <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 2 Packet Pg. 257 8.1.e <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. 258 8.1.e 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. 259 Memorandum: 8.1.e 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. 260 8.1.e • 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. 261 8.1.e 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. 262 8.1.e 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. 263 8.1.e 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. 264 8.1.e 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. 265 8.1.e 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. 266 8.1.e 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. 267 8.1.e 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. 268 8.1.e 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. 269 8.1.e 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. 270 8.1.e 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. 271 3) Bothell's zoning map and map legend h ZEDG,0 N� ORSHEIRINEw MEN I OEM NEW Homo women a Wolin min N-*- SPECIAL REMLIT LEMND 1\011 — Sp,,M weigh, Lim "4-AcoCB, q I Packet Pg. 272 1 8.1.e AIAF LLIiEND MDowntown Core 5"5t-[Lion 12.6A.1o1 -Downtown Neighborhood See Seeion 12.IS4.102 D wntown Transition District See 3eccion 12.64.103 SR 522 Corridor Sae SeoZ on 12.64-104 General Downtown Corridor See 5eclim 12b4.105 SulnriseNalley View Neighborho see se-w ++ 12 .1q4 Park and Public Open Space Sae 5enion 12.64.107 Cam PUS See Section 12.fi4-1U SR 522 Corridor Affordable Housing Qverl4y See seaiion 12-rrs.1om.4 Special Riverfront Overlay See Section 12.64. 1 G43.2 4 Floor Height Overlay See Section 12.6 .1Q2A Special Open Space Requirement see Sec s�nn � 2,6+1.34�.D .� Anderson Building See SkK ion 12 .101-13.2 plan Area Boundary Parking Exceptions Scd Section 12.64-10I R3 Pedestrian Oriented Retail Required See Section 12.64101,A Neighborhood Center Overlay (NCO) See Section 1213iA.10SA .... ■ Required New Pre -Located Street See S"Ni'on 1244,3 I AZ Required New Pedestrian Walkway See Sec&m 12.64.3011M A, B.C. D Split Parcel District Boundary See Section UTA.I06-C-1-3 Comer Entry Required See Section 12.64-M.0 ............ Mobile Horne Park Overlay See Scctlon 12.61.104.B.3 GDC Affordable Housing overlay SeE SeUlo:1 12.6 4.1 05.6.A Downtown Transition Overlay Ste Scalar, 12 .103.8.1 B. Shoreline VDowntown Transition District Affordable HOUSirlq OVeday S.ee Section 12-64. WBA 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. httDs://www.codeoublishing.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. 273 8.1.e 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. 274 8.1.e 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. 275 8.1.e 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. 276 8.1.e 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. 277 8.1.e 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. 278 8.1.f of EDP 0 v � .1� Permanent code amendment for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) City Council Public Hearing — May 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 279 8.1.f Planning Board Recommendation and Other Options Considered • Packet pages 217 & 250 • Recommend Option 4 (transition consistent with Subarea Plan, certainty for builders, complies with HB 1293) • Buildings 55' or less do not require step back • 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 Packet Pg. 280 1 ■■ ■■■ ■� i■ ■i mr or IN k �i � 4�i�R � �il� '•_�® NMI ■ . #R - '• IIIn 0a 7 15 8.1.f L------------------------------------------- - - - - -. -- ... - .-.. --- .-- .-------- - - - - -- - -- ..- I 1 i ------4 ------------------------------------------------------ PUBLI Ida ZONE 55'BUILDING ALU REALM (NO STEPRACKS REWIRED) SIDE � No step backs for buildings < 55 feet a+ Q Packet Pg. 282 8.1.f Design Review Processes Packet pages 243 - 244 1. Projects > 75' in High Rise nodes a. Type III -A (ADB review) b. HB 1293 limits: max of one meeting; two-phase process to be phased out 2. Projects > 35' adjacent to or across the street from RS zone a. Type II -A (Staff Decision with public notice and public comments) 3. Projects < 35' adjacent/across street OR projects < 75' not adjacent a. Type I (Staff Decision with no public notice or public comments) Packet Pg. 283 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Letter to State Regarding Environmental Goals for Marsh Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History On April 18, 2023 during discussion of the agenda item 8.2 WSDOT/City of Edmonds Memorandum of Understanding, Council passed a motion (4-3) to draft a letter to the State. The motion stated that this letter would be jointly signed by the mayor and each member of the City Council, expressing full support of the environmental goals for the Marsh. (Minutes attached) On April 18, 2023 during discussion of the agenda item 8.2 WSDOT/City of Edmonds Memorandum of Understanding, Council passed a motion (4- 3) to draft a letter to the State (minutes attached). This letter is a separate tool rather than the MOU. This letter requests a meeting with the Governor to discuss the idea of leaving the property ownership within in the State agency realm where there would be plenty of funding and mitigation funding available for clean-up should contamination occur once restoration began. The Governor signed ESHB 1125.PL which provides the provision in the 2023-2025 budget that Edmonds has the "right of first purchase" for the City's intended use of the property to rehabilitate near -shore habitat for salmon and related species should WSDOT take possession of the property and the property is no longer for transportation purposes (see attached). Department of Ecology has signaled that in July the science will be released on for this property (i.e. Terrestrial Evaluation Report, SEPA checklist, Clean-up plan, decree, etc.) for public comment. Considering the City is in the budget proviso, it seems prudent to wait to see the science. Recommendation Approval of the letter to be sent to the Governor requesting a meeting regarding State ownership. Narrative The Governor and many State and Federal Legislators have clearly stated that their highest priorities for our State and local environment include: salmon recovery, support for the Southern Resident Orcas, reduction of global warming through carbon sequestration, preservation/enhancement of bird and wildlife habitat and preservation of open spaces for public enjoyment. A restored and well -functioning Marsh will directly support these critical priorities. To retain the ownership within State ownership will be an optimal solution. Edmonds could enter into an inter -local agreement to serve as an active partner in designing, restoring, preserving and enhancing the Marsh, and volunteers will continue to actively work in their various environment groups educating our youth for future preservation techniques. Attachments: Pages from 2023-04-18 City Council - Full Minutes-3349 Packet Pg. 284 8.2 1125-S.PL provisio Council Letter Environmental Goals for Marsh Packet Pg. 285 8.2.a reflected that process. She clarified the council could not remove a single amendment from a packet of amendments on consent. Ms. McLaughlin answered it was not problematic to staff for council to pull the full package from consent for discussion. If the council decided during its discussion that a single item needed to be removed, excluding that item could be included in the motion, and the rest of the package adopted. Mr. Taraday explained Section 20.80.015.0 states, "At its discretion, the council may" and the intent of C.2 is to make it easy for single items to be pulled out of the ordinance and sent to the planning board for further analysis and consideration. That is not the request tonight so this is a hypothetical question, but if that were to happen, this code is silent about the mechanism for the actual amendment of the ordinance once an item is removed. The code does not address whether the ordinance comes back the week after on consent with that item removed which he envisioned would be the cleanest way if/when there is a situation arose where there was a desire to pull an item from consent. Councilmember Olson said where it wasn't hypothetical was the council is approving this code change as part of Attachment A and she suggested cleaning up that section of code to state something like "pull the package from consent to remove one or more of the proposed amendments for additional discussion and suitability..." She clarified her question is whether the code as written, which the council is approving tonight as part of Attachment A, accurately reflects the process of pulling things from consent. Mr. Taraday clarified C.2 is the process that's used and was previously adopted by ordinance. He agreed C.2 did not describe what happens when something is pulled from consent. If any single councilmember objects to an amendment going forward using the process in 20.80, it is removed from the ordinance. He wanted to ensure there was no objection to an amendment in this package. If there is an objection to an item in a future package of amendments, likely the ordinance would come back the next week on consent without that item. Councilmember Nand said she understood Councilmember Olson's point; once the council removes the entire package from consent... Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, explaining this agenda item is about a package of minor amendments and now the discussion is about code that was approved in the past. She suggested discussing that as part of a different agenda item at a different meeting as the council has a busy agenda and a lot of people are present for the MOU and this discussion is off topic. Councilmember Nand disagreed, stating her comments were germane to the procedure the council was utilizing. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken and suggested councilmembers be aware there are a lot of people waiting. Councilmember Nand commented the council is utilizing this procedure for first time and there questions about how it is utilized in accordance with a recently passed ordinance. The language in C.2 seems to state the council can remove items from the suggested minor code changes and then is obligated to pass the remainder of the items which does not seem to comply with actual practice of going on consent on a later date. That point needs to be clarified in utilizing this new procedure. Councilmember Olson commented the council always has the option of pulling something from consent and passing it as regular business. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 8.1 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. WSDOT/CITY OF EDMONDS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mayor Nelson advised tonight is for discussion only, and no action is requested. He explained for decades there has been talk and studies by councilmembers, mayors, and community members, but no steps have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 286 8.2.a been taken that have led the City to actually restoring the marsh. It continues to this day to be polluted, not functioning properly, salmon cannot reach it. His administration has tried every avenue of approach; they have met with the governor, the state... Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the council did not need the mayor as the leader to indicate the story behind this. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken, commenting as the chair of the meeting and many other meetings, he has listened to thousands of hours of minutia from councilmembers and had earned the right to introduce this topic. Mayor Nelson continued, his administration has tried every avenue of approach. He has met with governors, State legislators, Ecology, WSDOT, environmental and nonprofit organizations, and the current land owner, the big oil and climate polluter Chevron, all trying to find a path forward to restore the marsh. No State agency wants this property. The City has not had a productive relationship with the future owner, WSDOT, in a desire to protect the marsh until now. This MOU comes down to who do you trust to restore the marsh, the City or the free market? The City's path is to restore the marsh; the alternative path will fast track the marsh to development and continue the dissemination of salmon. The City is now at the table and moving forward with productive and collaborative discussions with WSDOT. An example of this collaboration is WSDOT's willingness to make changes at his request to expressly state the City's intent for this MOU. This MOU will now state the City's interest, "for the purpose of expanding the marsh estuary." To reject the beginning of this productive relationship that provides a path to acquire and restore the marsh is a giant step backward. Mayor Nelson continued, as mayor, he has proposed, lobbied and persuaded the legislature on the purchase proviso for the City so he has a good understanding of what the proviso can and cannot do. The proviso was done at the time because the City did not have a seat at the table. There is a lot of misinformation out there; the City cannot force a State agency to sell property to the City. If WSDOT disagrees with the City on the value of the property, they can sell it to a developer. The proviso provides no details on how to legally get the marsh property. The alternative path being championed tonight by some is unfortunately misinformed and very limited and will prevent the City's ability to purchase the marsh and instead allow developers to purchase it in the open market. Mayor Nelson continued, the relationship the City just started with WSDOT is very fragile; the amount of resistance to this MOU that has already been expressed by some before even hearing the presentation is giving WSDOT second thoughts. Internally there are discussions saying they should pull out. He urged everyone not to fall into this trap being promoted by those with misinformation who seem to revel in being in a perpetual state of conflict. Councilmembers have before them the first opportunity in decades, a mutually agreed upon road map between the City and WSDOT to take action to acquire the marsh for restoration. The MOU is a fragile document with the weight of decades of conflict that has gotten the City no where closer to saving the marsh until now. He urged everyone to see this for what it is, a genuine and real path forward for the City to restore the Edmonds Marsh. Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum commented a myriad tense, cordial, curious, accusatory, collegial conversations over the past weeks have shown that everyone can benefit from an open public process that gets all stakeholders to a shared level of understanding about the process to get to a sale with WSDOT. That is one of primary reasons for the MOU, to daylight staff s work, legal requirements, and the process to get to a sale and increase the understanding of the process. The first step was a proviso that directed WSDOT to give the City the first right of purchase, but that does not discuss how to get there. Staff wants to provide more clarity around the purchase process; WSDOT came to the City, bringing their staff and leadership to the table, to discuss the how in depth. He assured directors, the City's legal team and real estate consultants have all had a chance to look this over, ask questions, and challenge points and assumptions, to get the document to where it is today. This MOU is not the culmination, it is beginning that allow the parties to focus on next steps with confidence. He reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 287 8.2.a Why an MOU and Why Now o An MOU ■ Expresses a convergence of will between two parties ■ Is non -binding, but signals the intent to move toward a contract ■ Sets the tone and expectations of the parties o Why now? ■ It's needed ■ It helps to focus our attention on our next steps ■ It gives us a framework for productive conversations (internal and external) about a sale Background o WSDOT and Unocal entered into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) dated January 27, 2055 o Unocal's interest in the PSA transferred to the Chevron Corporation upon Chevron's acquisition of Unocal o Before WSDOT acquires the former Unocal Property, Chevron/Unocal is required to remediate the existing environmental contamination on the property in accordance with the criteria set forth in the PSA o Title to the former Unocal property will transfer to WSDOT after Chevron/Unocal obtains written confirmation from DOE that Chevron/Unocal has satisfactorily performed the Capital Remediation Work, to the extent that the Monitoring Work may commence MOU calls out continued coordination o Section 2.9: ■ Upon execution of this MOU, WSDOT and the City shall negotiate and execute an Addendum to this MOU that authorizes the City's access to the information, opinions, and recommendations (excluding risk analysis) that WSDOT has obtained from Landau Associates about the property and the Capital Remediation Work. ■ WSDOT acknowledges that Landau's work, once assessed and understood by the City, could cause the City to reevaluate its interest in acquiring the property on the terms contemplated herein. Requirements before a sale can occur o Close of PSA escrow o Recording and title o Edmonds confirms interest o Property declared surplus o Edmonds and WSDOT execute a PSA ■ MOU covers topics to get to a PSA o City pays agreed upon fair market value Next steps — potential amendment o Section 2.8: the City has expressed an interest in acquiring the former Unocal property for the purpose of expandingtjoining Edmonds Marsh Estuar. ■ WSDOT is comfortable with adding this language Next steps o Sign the MOU o Begin our internal work plan o Negotiate and execute an addendum to the MOU granting the city access to the information, opinions, and recommendations WSDOT has obtained from Landau Associates Recommendation o Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the addition to Section 2.8. She commented the Department of Ecology or the documents about to be given to the City were not mentioned. She asked how those will affect the MOU, commenting in her opinion, the City needs to worry about cleanup costs. As long as Unocal is involved with WSDOT and they are trying resolve cleanup issues, and now the City is entering into an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 288 8.2.a MOU, why is the information about documentation DOE will provide not mentioned. As one of the retired experts in the community knows, disasters could occur which raises the issue of who pays. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU covers the process to get to a purchase and sale agreement with WSDOT. The Ecology documents could have any number of effects; there will be some restrictions on buildability on the land, there will be a feasibility study about removing the culvert. Those documents will certainly be included in the City's own risk assessment and determination of fair market value. They will be incorporated not in the MOU but in the MOU process when it gets to fair market value. They could have catastrophic effects on the ability to restore the property to an estuary and cause the City to reconsider the approach to the land after the City owns it, but it would not change the purchase process which is what the MOU details. Councilmember Buckshnis said to be a prudent buyer, the City should look at all the details available. She questioned why the City would not wait until July when those documents will be available and allow the City and the public time to look at them. She referred to WSDOT and administration's involvement in the connector project which excluded the council and the public and later blew up. She wanted to be very pragmatic and was being overly conscious due to the previous process with WSDOT that blew up. She preferred to wait three months to obtain the data and allow public comment. She feared receiving those documents after the City has signed the MOU. There are some who want to sign the MOU and move forward like the administration and others who want to know all the information first so a prudent decision can be made. She asked if WSDOT was willing to wait until the Ecology documents were available. Mr. Tatum said he could ask, but he was not sure it would change anything. The MOU is about the process of purchase, not necessarily the risk of purchase or what those risks mean as far as the City's project plans. He was unsure what would change by waiting other than a desire to no longer enter into the MOU. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not saying she was not interested into entering into the MOU, but it would be nice to have the public on the same train by allowing everyone an opportunity to look at the documents before making a decision. For example, the new Ecology terrestrial evaluation deals with chemicals that cannot be seen; a report she is interested in seeing. Mr. Tatum said the MOU is not creating a purchase and sale agreement which would have warranties, representations, limitations, deed restrictions, etc. The MOU lays out the process for a purchase. The Ecology documents color what is done during that process but they do not change the process. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she will provide information to Mr. Tatum regarding WSDOT's transfer of land to DNR for I-90. She summarized locking this in without looking at all the options may cost taxpayers a lot of money. Council President Tibbott commented what he is hearing described tonight is tandem tracks; the State is working on cleanup and preparing the land for a future transfer. The second track is the City who has designs and ambitions for what that property might eventually look like. During the coming year, the City will be working on the vision and zoning for the comprehensive plan which is separate from the MOU. He asked what the benefits were of entering into an MOU now, knowing that the City and the State are doing their work in preparation for a future eventuality. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU sets a baseline understanding about what the process of getting to a purchase and sale agreement looks like. Everyone is on different sheets of music, different levels of understanding about how this may occur. Putting the City and WSDOT on level ground regarding the process to get there via the MOU allows for more productive conversations with WSDOT. For example, if something unexpected comes out of Ecology process and changes what the City thinks is possible for the land or changes the value, the MOU establishes a framework to discuss that with WSDOT. There is a willing seller and motivated buyer and the MOU is an agreement that allows the parties to agree more. Council President Tibbott observed that would be the benefit. He assumed those conversations were occurring without the MOU. Mr. Tatum answered sort of yes. When parties sign an MOU, it is like the line in the Robert Frost poem, good fences make good neighbors; the MOU means the parties agree to talk to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 289 8.2.a each other. Conversations with WSDOT have not been entirely productive because they come from 14 different points of view and 14 different points of entry. The MOU helps get to a more central point of view about how to deal with problems and issues of selling this property to the City. Councilmember Teitzel referred to HB 1125 and SB 5162 being considered in the current biennium budget; a decision on the budget will be made in the next couple weeks. The budget includes a provision in Section 214, "Total appropriation. The total appropriations in this section are subject to the following conditions and limitations. During the 2025 biennium if a department takes possession of the properties situated in the City of Edmonds for which a purchase agreement was executed between Unocal and the Department in 2005, Tax Parcel number 262703-2-003-009, and if the Department confirms that the property is still no longer needed for transportation purposes, the Department shall provide the City of Edmonds with the first right of purchase at fair market value in accordance with RCW 47.12.063(3) for the City's intended use of the property to rehabilitate nearshore habitat for salmon and related species." If the budget passes, the City will have right of first refusal through the end of 2025. Mr. Tatum advised it would be through June 30, 2025. Councilmember Teitzel continued, the budget provision also provides for the intended use of the property for salmon and related species. WSDOT acknowledged that by including the additional language in Section 2.8 of the MOU. Mr. Tatum advised WSDOT is amendable to including the additional language. The existing MOU that has been signed by WSDOT does not include that language. Councilmember Teitzel summarized if the budget passes with that provision, WSDOT will be required to recognize that use of the property. Including that language in the MOU means WSDOT agrees to what they are already obliged to in the budget. Mr. Tatum advised the proviso language was prepared in cooperation with WSDOT at the beginning of the last biennium. Councilmember Teitzel commented there likely was no one in the room tonight, in the audience or on the dais, that wants to see mixed use apartments or condos on the Unocal property; everyone wants the property restored for fish, wildlife, nature habitat, conservation and ecology purposes, etc. He identified high priorities at the State level: salmon recovery, recovery of the southern resident orca species, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction, open space preservation, and bird and wildlife restoration. The City will be partnering with the State in the marsh property to make those things happen. His concern about the MOU, even though it is nonbinding, it sends the City down a path toward a purchase. That may be what ultimately happens if the State does not want the property, but he wanted to explore the transfer of the property to another State agency and Edmonds committing to be a partner in supporting the stated objectives. He preferred to wait to see what passes in the budget not only related to the budget provision, but the various housing bills. He supports marsh restoration and felt articulating the mutual interests in the property to the State, the governor who is a green governor, and the various State agencies would be very powerful. If the budget passes, he did not see the urgency of approving the MOU. Mr. Tatum said City and WSDOT staffs have discussed a possible transfer with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and those conversations were not particularly fruitful. He agreed with Councilmember Teitzel's comments about the State's priorities related to environmental restoration, sequestration, etc. and said those are great levers to pull when gathering funding sources for purchase and project. Those are great talking points with the State and discussion points for how to determine fair market value. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was good to know that some discussion is happened between WSDOT and DNR and potentially other agencies, but that was the first he's heard of that happening. He asked why that was not of interest to other agencies, especially due to the shared interest in the environment, wildlife, fish and orcas. He anticipated there was opportunity for partnership and wanted to explore that further. Councilmember Paine said the Unocal parcel, combined with the Edmonds Marsh, is something that almost 100% of Edmonds wants restored. Activists have been working on it for a long time, including buffers to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 290 8.2.a protect the marsh from encroachment. She was pleased to see that that work helped inform what is being done now and letting WSDOT know, who does not need City, about the City's hope and desire to restore the land. She asked about how many hours staff has been spent on this process, anticipating discussions had been occurring for about 1'/2 years. Mr. Tatum answered certainly a year, his predecessors have all been involved in discussions leading to what is included in the MOU and the FAQ. An incredible amount of staff work has gone into it for many years and certainly in the past 1'/2 years. Councilmember Paine commented the MOU is focused on finding a path and allowing for discussions to occur when not all the details are known. The process will allow for exploration and shows the City is committed to the process. The MOU is a great way to memorialize the discussions and put a process in place. She appreciated staff and the administration's work, WSDOT's work because they certainly did not have to agree to the MOU, and the legislators who added the proviso. The MOU is a gesture of diligence and goodwill and she would love to have the MOU passed to memorialize the path for both parties. Councilmember Chen observed the State has already signed the MOU which shows they are a willing seller and are interested in working with the City proactively. He used to work for a pulp mill in Everett and recalled it took almost ten years to find a potential buyer and eventually the city took over due to the contamination and humungous cleanup costs. The Unocal property has the same potential. With that being said, this property is a jewel in the heart of Edmonds and has so much potential. The current and former administrations have been involved and during his involvement with the City since 2019, he learned many in Edmonds are passionate about the marsh and this partnership potential. The MOU is a great first step that can move the City closer to acquisition, it is a way of opening communication with WSDOT. The City needs to go in with eyes wide open of the potential risk. Councilmember Chen asked for assurance that signing the MOU with WSDOT did not bind the City to anything such as if further investigation/study found the cleanup costs were more than the City could bear. Mr. Tatum said that was correct. The proviso does not guarantee the City will be the purchaser and neither does the MOU. The MOU provides a path to help answer questions to get there. As called out in Section 2.9 regarding the Landau documents, that was important information to add; as staff is thinking about this property, the risk is significant and some risk will remain latent with the property for a long time. The first big step for the City is the risk analysis which will help color the rest of the steps in the MOU so the City does not arrive at the end surprised at what it is attempting to purchase. Councilmember Chen summarized the MOU is a good first step for both sides to show their willingness to have a conversation in a more formal way. He reiterated the City needed to be aware of potential risks. Councilmember Nand observed the marsh and the Unocal property is a topic that excites a lot of passion because of the level of engagement from the community. People have a lot of questions and that is valid. This process has become somewhat politicized; there is a robust community engagement and public process for a reason. The City is potentially spending millions of taxpayer's money and the community has a right to have their questions answered. She complimented Mr. Tatum on the amount of work he did preparing the FAQ about the MOU. Councilmember Nand referred to Section 6.4, Remediation Plan and Work, and asked if the council signs the MOU, could the City ask for more transparency from Ecology and WSDOT about the remediation steps that Chevron and Unocal and their subsidiary have already taken on the property and what cleanup can be expected to where the PSA is triggered. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU puts the City in a more constructive dialogue with WSDOT. For example, getting the Landau documents and the City doing its own analysis on them will be a big step. There is a huge amount of documentation on Ecology's website which the City could spend a long time trying to digest. The City will have an opportunity as a key stakeholder to review the Ecology documents this summer and integrate those into its decision making. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 13 Packet Pg. 291 8.2.a Councilmember Nand said the main concern she has heard from the community is there has not been enough transparency which may be a gap in the level of expertise with Ecology and WSDOT that needs to be digested so citizens understand. Mr. Tatum agreed that is what is missing, context for ourselves. There is a lot of documentation on Ecology's website about the cleanup, but there is an interpretation piece missing, not what this means to Ecology or to WSDOT, but what it means to the City for its purposes. He recommended spending some money and effort to put that information into context. Obtain the existing documents, the City do its own analysis, having a risk analysis done and apprising the legislative and executive branches and the public. Councilmember Nand assumed that would be part of the City's due diligence as a stakeholder and potential buyer or group of buyers. Mr. Tatum said signing the MOU is a good platform to start doing that due diligence so the City can arrive at an informed place when the property is available for sale. Councilmember Nand summarized the MOU functions as a statement of intent at the start of a real estate transaction. Councilmember Olson commented there is some value in the council supporting the MOU, drafting a letter, or utilizing some other tool. The fact that the City and WSDOT went down the road on this tool may be a reason to support this route in the end. She referred to a question about whether the MOU is the right tool. The FAQs state the MOU is nonbinding and despite what another councilmember said, the City is not committed to this process. She was concerned about having a false sense of security with this MOU and wanted to recognize that the MOU was a nice to have supplement, but it was not standing in place of things that are binding like the current proviso. She wanted to ensure the City asked for another budget proviso in two years even if the City signed the MOU because the MOU is non -binding. She asked Mr. Taraday or Mr. Tatum to comment on her interpretation. Mr. Taraday commented on the extent to which the proviso is binding, explaining what a first right of purchase is; it is basically WSDOT giving the City the first opportunity to purchase the property when they decide to sell. It does not require WSDOT to sell it to the City on any particular terms other than fair market value which is also set forth in the proviso. The rest of the terms are not set forth in the proviso, it does not say when WSDOT is ready to sell, it will sell to Edmonds according to the terms of this 40 page purchase and sale agreement. There are a lot of ways in which the right of first purchase could end up not materializing into a purchase and sale agreement even if the parties could agree on fair market value because there are other terms that will be material to a future purchase especially in a property like this where there are environmental factors to be considered. The proviso is helpful and the MOU is also helpful, but it was overstating the proviso language to characterize it as binding. It requires WSDOT to come to the City first, but it does not require WSDOT to consummate a sale with Edmonds. Councilmember Olson observed the MOU would not be binding on WSDOT to come to the City for the sale. Mr. Taraday agreed, the MOU is a relationship building document, but is not in any way a binding document. Councilmember Olson observed the MOU does less for the City than the proviso, although she could appreciate that relationship building was important especially considering the past. Mr. Taraday said he was not sure he agreed, the proviso will only be in effect one biennium at a time, and the proviso is not really something WSDOT is very supportive of. From a relationship building standpoint, he was unsure that the proviso did as much to build relationship with WSDOT as the MOU does. How that question is answered, which one is better or more valuable, may depend on how one weights the aspect of relationship building in the overall context. If the council thinks that relationship building is important, the MOU may be the way to go. If the council feels relationship building is not important, then the proviso may look like a better path. That is how he saw them being materially different. Mr. Tatum said what is clear through the discussions in recent weeks is there is a gap. Like Mr. Taraday said, the City has the first right of purchase, but that does not mean the City has the means to get to a purchase and sale agreement and own the property. There is a gap of due diligence, work that needs to be done to ensure the City understands the risk, the process, the steps, requirements, etc. With regard to which Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 14 Packet Pg. 292 8.2.a is better, the MOU provides a framework, a stable platform as the City works to do that due diligence and helps get to a place of understanding where a sale could be consummated rather than just having a proviso and needing to do all the work when the property is available for sale. Councilmember Olson related her sense from talking to community members and councilmembers that the amendment to Section 2.8 will be important. She asked whether that would be included when this comes to the council to authorize the mayor to sign the MOU. Mr. Tatum answered there are several ways to proceed, the MOU could be signed and then amended or it could be amended, resigned by WSDOT and then presented to council for authorization for the mayor to sign it. Councilmember Teitzel commented although there has been a lot of discussion and it may feel like people are divided on the issue, he believed everyone on the dais and everyone in the audience were in agreement and their goals were the same such as salmon recovery, carbon sequestration, wildlife and open space preservation, etc. and that should be expressed to the State. He supported Councilmember Olson's idea of a letter regardless of whether the council authorized the mayor to sign the MOU. A letter could express the City is willing to partner with the State to support their high priorities in the areas he listed. If that involves the State retaining ownership in some capacity and the City being a partner in supporting those goals, that would also be acceptable as would WSDOT selling the property to the City. There would be value in showing that the electeds are unified and he invited the mayor to sign such a letter along with councilmembers. He referred to Mayor Nelson's comment about other agencies potentially controlling/owning the property and wanted to explore that further. A letter showing the elected and the community is unified could be powerful. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO DRAFT A LETTER, JOINTLY SIGNED BY THE MAYOR AND EACH MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL, EXPRESSING FULL SUPPORT OF THE GOALS HE ENUMERATED EARLIER AND HE OFFERED TO PREPARE THE FIRST DRAFT OF A LETTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized the importance of keeping the State legislators involved. She has been on WRIA 8 for eight years and on the grant funding committee for nine years and knows the people from DNR, WDFW, and RCO. She supported Councilmember Teitzel idea of a letter. She referred to SEPA and issues related to contamination, noting there is a lawsuit between Chevron and WSDOT. The MOU is a means of going down a path that many have been working on for a long time including the council allocating $1 million for marsh restoration/purchase. She has dedicated her entire council career to the marsh. It is important the council does not pigeonhole itself into something it does not understand because all the documents are not available yet. The previous proviso did not specify "for the city's intended use of property to rehabilitee nearshore habitat for salmon and related species" and by including that in the proviso, it's clear the State wants the City to be a working partner. Many environmental organization's goals are related to salmon recovery because by extension, that is orca recovery. She suggested using that tool first before binding the City to an agency that is already involved in a lawsuit over the property. She recognized this information has nothing to do with the discussion but there are other aspects that people need to understand. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, suggesting council comments focus on the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Councilmember Teitzel's motion. Councilmember Paine said she was in full support of the MOU and had no objection to a letter in support of goals that are in alignment with the MOU and having that information spread more broadly to the county executive and other players in the region. The first thing the council needs to do is support the MOU as written with the amendment to Section 2.8. A letter cannot take the place of the MOU; the MOU describes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 15 Packet Pg. 293 8.2.a the path, a letter is an offer of support and possibly additive as long as it was in support of the MOU. If the letter did not look like that, she would not support it. Councilmember Nand said while she applauded Councilmember Teitzel's intent in proposing a letter, from her prospective in the private sector, the typical process for real estate acquisition is a non -binding MOU followed by a letter of intent which is binding on the parties and hopefully eventually getting to a purchase and sale agreement. She acknowledged it could be very different in municipal property acquisition. She feared a letter could cause a level of confusion if the council was somehow skipping steps. If the council is not ready to proceed with the MOU tonight because they want to have more information about the information Ecology has published and there are concerns regarding contamination and environmental related to acquiring the Unocal property and committing taxpayer dollars, it would be more beneficial to do due diligence and direct Mr. Tatum or secure a consult to advise the council and do the due diligence and then proceed with the normal sequence of documents which starts with an MOU, followed by a letter of intent and eventually hopefully consummated with a purchase and sale agreement. Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Taraday whether a letter showing the City's intent to expand the marsh estuary as stated in Section 2.8 would be confusing. She did not think the letter should reference the proposed MOU to show the City is not conflicted and is ready to make a clear statement to that effect as a leadership body representing the community whose desire is to expand the marsh estuary. As others have said, this doesn't preclude councilmembers from voting for the MOU. She anticipated a letter could be quick and easy and could be done right away to address some residents' concern that the council is sending a message they are not interested in the property which of course is not a message the council wants to send. Mr. Taraday said he was hesitant to speculate about how WSDOT might receive a letter as opposed to or in addition to also receiving a signed MOU. Mayor Nelson said since council had involved him in the letter, he would be happy to consider the letter after the council supports the MOU. The council should be legislating, not writing letters. Councilmember Chen said he would support the MOU with the addition of a letter to expand the intent in Section 2.8 to include the points mentioned by Councilmember Teitzel. He envisioned a letter would strengthen the City's position so he would support both. Council President Tibbott did not support the motion, finding it premature. He preferred the council make a decision one way or another on the MOU and at some point a letter like this would be germane to conversation. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR CONTRACT Community Services/Economic Development Director Tatum reviewed the Cultural Corridor 10% contract: • Why is this contract in front of you today o Mayor is authorized to sign A/E contracts when the consultant contact fee is greater tan $50,000 but less than $100,000 ■ This contract is for $68,000 - Up to $34,000 in ArtsWA grants - Up to $34,000 in City funds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 16 Packet Pg. 294 8.2.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 conjunction with the state commercial aviation work group, to evaluate various operational and technological enhancements addressing the environmental impacts from commercial aviation activities. The enhancements may include, but are not limited to: (a) Climate -friendly routing of aircraft; (b) innovations addressing the climate change effects of noncarbon dioxide emissions from aviation activities; (c) simulation models applied to congested airports; and (d) online tools to track, analyze, and improve carbon footprints related to aviation activities. A report of findings is due to the governor and the transportation committees of the legislature by June M 30, 2025. L 12 NEW SECTION. Sec. 214. FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- 13 PROGRAM DELIVERY MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT —PROGRAM H 14 Motor Vehicle Account —State Appropriation. . . . . . . . $64,470,000 15 Motor Vehicle Account —Federal Appropriation. . . . . . . . . $500,000 16 Multimodal Transportation Account —State 17 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $851, 000 18 Move Ahead WA Flexible Account —State Appropriation. . . . . $572,000 19 TOTAL APPROPRIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $66,393,000 20 The appropriations in this section are subject to the following 21 conditions and limitations: 22 (1) During the 2023-2025 fiscal biennium, if the department takes 23 possession of the property situated in the city of Edmonds for which 24 a purchase agreement was executed between Unocal and the department 25 in 2005 (Tax Parcel Number 262703-2-003-0009), and if the department 26 confirms that the property is still no longer needed for 27 transportation purposes, the department shall provide the city of 28 Edmonds with the first right of purchase at fair market value in 29 accordance with RCW 47.12.063(3) for the city's intended use of the 30 property to rehabilitate near -shore habitat for salmon and related 31 species. 32 (2) $469,000 of the motor vehicle account —state appropriation is 33 reappropriated and provided solely for the implementation of chapter 34 217, Laws of 2021 (noxious weeds). 35 (3) The department shall determine the fair market value of the 36 northern parcel of site 14 on the Puget Sound Gateway Program SR 509 37 Completion Project Surplus Property list, located immediately south 38 of S. 216th Street and adjacent to the Barnes Creek Nature Trail in p . 48 ESH Packet Pg. 295 8.2.c CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0248 • FAX 425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov May XX, 2023 Subject: Edmonds Marsh: A Nearshore Estuary The Honorable Jay Inslee Office of the Governor PO Box 40002 Olympia, WA 98504-0002 Governor Inslee, We sincerely thank you for your passionate support throughout your political career for the environment. We stand with you in our mutual efforts to protect and enhance our environment and to create opportunities for fish and wildlife to thrive. Such an opportunity is now before us in Edmonds, and we hope to partner with the State in restoration efforts for our Edmonds Marsh (the Marsh). The Marsh is one of the few remaining urban, tidally - influenced saltwater estuaries in the Puget Sound area. Most importantly, it is the largest nearshore estuary in Central Puget Sound between Olympia and Everett. It is clear your and our federal legislators' highest priorities for our State and local environment include: salmon recovery, support for the Southern Resident Orcas, reduction of global warming through carbon sequestration, preservation/enhancement of bird and wildlife habitat and preservation of open spaces for public enjoyment. A restored and well -functioning Marsh will directly support these critical priorities, and we must take advantage of this generational opportunity to work together around this restoration effort. History of the Marsh: The Marsh once occupied over 100 acres and was reduced to under 30 acres due to urban development and infill. A portion of the historic Marsh, which was used by Unocal/Chevron as a bulk fuel terminal and asphalt plant for over 60 years, is currently undergoing cleanup prior to title transfer to WSDOT in accordance with their 2005 Purchase Agreement. WSDOT's intended use of the 22-acre parcel was to relocate the Edmonds Ferry Terminal in a project entitled "Edmonds Crossing"; a multi -modal transportation terminal and mixed -use development. Taxpayers voted down project funding for Edmonds Crossing and Packet Pg. 296 8.2.c WSDOT abandoned that project in 2018. As such, after the title transfers to the State (pending the Department of Ecology certifying satisfactory cleanup), WSDOT intends to dispose of the property. Science and recent projects like the Meadowdale Restoration Project have shown that the Marsh can be restored to a fully functioning saltwater estuary, supporting many species of salmon, dozens of species of birds, deer, coyotes, racoons, and many other aquatic species we can't see. Recently, a beaver was sighted in a newly restored portion of the Marsh, an area that was manually cleared of invasive vegetation blocking freshwater exchange by a team of local volunteers. 1 These volunteers are eager to continue their efforts as the City awaits resolution of the status of the Unocal property. The City has received Salmon Recovery Funding Board grants for feasibility studies that documented the Marsh, once properly restored, will provide a prime natural environment for salmon recovery. With a properly designed restoration plan, salmon will be enabled to easily enter the estuary from Puget Sound to forage, spawn and rest. Importantly, this nearshore estuary will support multiple salmon species, including the threated Chinook salmon and will enhance our environment. Mostly, our Marsh will be a shining example of Puget Sound nearshore estuary restoration, creating a net ecological gain to be enjoyed by all and will capture future generations delight. Our suggested option for you to consider to drive this high priority restoration forward is to have the State maintain ownership. This option would simply transfer the property from WSDOT to another agency that manages natural areas for environmental preservation, fish/wildlife protection and outdoor recreation. In this scenario, Edmonds will be gladly enter into an inter -local agreement and serve as an active partner in preserving and enhancing the Marsh, and volunteers will continue to actively work in their various environment groups educating our youth for future preservation techniques. As you are aware, you have signed ESHB 1125.PL which identifies that Edmonds will have "the right of first purchase" of this parcel with the intended use to rehabilitate near -shore habitat for salmon and related species. We thank you and wish to meet with you regarding the reasons for the State to maintain ownership. Please let us know if you and/or your staff can meet with representatives from the City, including volunteer scientists and WRIA 8 representatives to discuss this very rare opportunity to protect and enhance the last and largest remaining tidally -influenced estuary in central Puget Sound. ' The Edmonds Marsh estuary is bisected by State Route 104 which leads to the Edmonds ferry terminal --one of the most heavily used terminals for commerce in the State system. With WSDOT's approval to allow volunteers to work in the Marsh on their property, the volunteers' efforts have significantly improved water flow under SR 104 between the two Marsh sections. However, continued City -State cooperation is needed to improve water movement in the Marsh and to support overall restoration goals. 2 Packet Pg. 297 8.2.c Sincerely, Mayor Mike Nelson Councilmember Dave Teitzel Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Councilmember Susan Paine cc: U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Representative Rick Larsen Senator Jesse Salomon Senator Marko Liias Senator Joe Nguyen Representative Strom Peterson Representative Lillian Ortiz -Self Representative Cindy Ryu Representative Lauren Davis Representative Beth Doglio Roger Millar, Secretary of Transportation Hillary Franz, Commissioner of Public Lands Laura Watson, Director, Department of Ecology Kelly Susewind, Director, Department of Fish and Wildlife Patty Rubstello, Assistant Secretary, Washington State Ferries Ruth Musgrave, Senior Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Carrie Sessions, Senior Policy Advisor, Environment & Water Jon Snyder, Senior Policy Advisor, Outdoor Recreation & Economic Development Council President Neil Tibbott Councilmember Will Chen Councilmember Vivian Olson Councilmember Jenna Nand Laura Blackmore, Executive Director, Puget Sound Partnership Dennis McLerran, Chair, Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council David Troutt, Puget Sound Partnership, Nisqually Tribe Jeannie Abbott, Program Coordinator, Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Justin Parker, Executive Director, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Jason Mulvihill, WRIA-8 Salmon Recovery Manager Teri Gobin, Chair, Tulalip Tribes Board of Directors Angela Harris, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds Steve Johnston, Commission President, Port of Edmonds Todd Zackey, Tulalip Tribes Todd Tatum, City of Edmonds Economic Development Director Packet Pg. 298 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 WSDOT/City of Edmonds Memorandum of Understanding Staff Lead: Community Services Department: Community Services Preparer: Todd Tatum Background/History The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) entered into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) in January 2005 for the property known as the Edmonds Lower Yard. Chevron, which purchased Unocal, has been conducting remediation on the site since this time under advisement of the Washington State Department of Ecology. The completion of this action is necessary for the PSA between WSDOT and Chevron to close. WSDOT intended to use the site as a new multi -modal transportation center, but has since abandoned that effort, leaving the property surplus to their needs. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU outlining the process necessary between WSDOT and the City of Edmonds for an acquisition of the "Unocal" property Narrative Staff from the City and WSDOT have worked collaboratively to understand each other's processes, positions, and needs before a sale of the property to the City could occur. In the lead up to the development of the MOU, staff have met with representatives from Chevron and with many members of the WSDOT team, including the leadership of their ferry division. These discussions have been open, collaborative, and helpful to our understanding of the property. This MOU, while a non -binding document, helps each party to understand the process, and how to best direct our efforts prior to a potential sale to the City. Ecology is preparing a draft Cleanup Action Plan and Consent Decree. These documents will govern any contingency cleanup work required at the conclusion of the dual -phase extraction in December 2023. These documents, and any work associated with them, are the primary driver of a timeline for the sale of the property. Attachments: 2023-04-11 FAQ on the MOU between WSDOT and the City of Edmonds regarding the Former Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal EdmondsWSFMOU with restoration language Purchase & Sale Agreement Unocal First Amendment Second Amendment WSDOT MOU May 23rd to City Council Packet Pg. 299 8.3.a FAQ on the MOU between Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City of Edmonds on the Former Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal Q: What is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and why should we have one? A: A MOU is a nonbinding agreement that states each party's intentions to act in a certain way, or toward a certain goal. In this case, the MOU helps each party understand the path toward a potential purchase of the property. This provides clarity as we make decisions about the property as a city. Q: How was this MOU initiated? A: City staff and WSDOT staff have been in contact often throughout the years on this property. Both sides agreed that a lack of clarity around the purchase process has created challenges and concern on both sides and amongst members of the public. City staff and WSDOT staff agreed to clarify this process in a public document. City staff and consultants have provided input on the document over several months. Q: Does this MOU lock us in to anything? I'm concerned that we'll learn something that will change our minds about the property in one way or another. A: A Memorandum of Understanding is non -binding by its nature. This is explicitly called out in Section 6.1 of the document. The document itself has been reviewed at length by our legal team. Q: Why do we need an MOU when we have a proviso in the state's budget giving us first right of purchase of the property? How long is the first right of purchase? A: The proviso gives us the first right of purchase, but doesn't give us a roadmap of how to get there. Having an agreed -to set of guidelines lets the City plan and budget effectively for the eventual purchase. The existing first right of purchase expires June 30, 2023 with the State's biennial budget. Another first right of purchase is proposed in the State's 2023-2025 budget. That budget must be voted into law by April 23, 2023. Assuming the language remains in the budget throughout the rest of the legislative process, it will be valid until June 30, 2025. By contrast, the MOU has the potential to remain in place over several budget cycles as progress is made toward the city's purchase. The MOU also sows the seeds for a cooperative relationship toward a shared goal between the City and WSDOT in a way that the proviso may not. Packet Pg. 300 8.3.a Q: How might this MOU impact the comprehensive plan and zoning of the property? Does it lock in the existing zoning of Master Planned Mixed Use? A: The MOU has no impact or relationship to the property's comprehensive plan or zoning classification. The City's comprehensive plan ultimately creates parameters for zoning that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Q: Why is fair market value called out? Does that commit us to a purchase price? A: Fair market value is called out because it is required by the law governing WSDOT's sale of surplus properties. This does not commit us to a specific purchase price at this time. The process to get to a purchase price will come after the steps in Section 4.1-4.4 of the MOU. The proviso also requires the payment of fair market value. So, in that respect, the MOU and the proviso do not differ. Q: What is fair market value (FMV)? A: The definition of FMV is found in the Washington Administrative Code in several places, most of which are similar to "the amount of money which a purchaser willing, but not obliged, to buy would pay a seller willing, but not obligated, to sell, for property, goods, or services." In simple terms, this is essentially the purchase price as negotiated by both the buyer and seller. Q: How is fair market value determined? Will we be able to negotiate this with WSDOT, or is it fixed? A: In situations like this, fair market value is often determined by appraisers. The appraiser's determination of fair market value is complicated and can take in many different considerations, among those are: legal uses of the property, feasible uses of the property, comparable sales, risks involved in ownership, any remedial action that is required or likely, values of easements, etc. We will negotiate with WSDOT for a process to determine FMV. This is called out in Section 4.5.1 of the MOU. Q: How does the Washington State Department of Ecology's upcoming public comment period on the Feasibility Study, Cleanup Action Plan, Consent Decree, and SEPA Determination of Non -Significance impact this MOU, and why don't we wait until afterward? A: These documents are of critical importance to the lead -up to a potential sale. They'll be used in determining risks, will be important in the discussion of fair market value, and have immense value in determining future uses of the land. These documents will absolutely impact they city's internal processes and decision -making leading to a purchase. The MOU covers the process between the City and WSDOT to conclude a sale of the property. The Ecology process will impact fair market value and our options for modifying and using the property, but are separate from the steps between the City and WSDOT in the purchasing process itself. These documents are public records and available for everyone to review. Packet Pg. 301 8.3.a Q: Why is RCW 47.12.063 (Surplus Real Property Program) being used, which governs "surplus" property instead of RCW 47.12.080 (Sale or Exchange of Unused Land) which governs "unused" property transfers due to public interest? RCW 47.12.080 seems to give the city options other than fair market value. A: RCW 47.12.080 is primarily used when a WSDOT asset will continue to be used by another entity for transportation purposes. That is not the City's intended use. Additionally, this land was purchased with Motor Vehicle Fund dollars, which restricts the use of funds to highway purposes including ferry landings. Monies from the purchase of the land will be used to replace the multimodal account funds used for the original purchase. Several RCWs require proceeds of sales from property acquired with motor vehicle funds to be returned to the motor vehicle fund. An example of one of the rare times RCW 47.12.080 was used to transfer property without payment was in the case of the Rocky Reach Trail. This was a transfer of land that was never used to construct a highway to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). The legislature detailed how the use of the property by the WSPRC continued to serve a highway purpose, therefore monetary compensation was not needed. It also mandates that if the WSPRC ceases to use the property for this highway purpose, it must pay WSDOT the fair market value of the property. Packet Pg. 302 8.3.b WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION AND 14 k WK9124 RILT1 IQ 0 1 oil MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMER UNOCAL BULK FUEL TERMINAL - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is entered into by and between the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City of Edmonds, Washington (City), collectively referred to as the "Parties" 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this MOU is to set forth the Parties' general understanding regarding the potential acquisition of that certain real property known as the Former Unocal Property( the "Property"), by the City from WSDOT. 2. BACKGROUND. 2.1 WSDOT and Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) entered into a purchase and sale agreement entitled Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions, dated January 27, 2005 (PSA). The PSA is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The PSA set forth the terms and conditions under which WSDOT would purchase from Unocal certain real property located in Edmonds, Washington, now known as the Former Unocal Property and previously known as the Edmonds Lower Yard. The Former Unocal Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is identified by the Snohomish County Auditor's Office as Tax Parcel Number 262703-2-003-0009 and by WSDOT as Parcel #1-21510 (Former Unocal Property or Property). Unocal's interest in the PSA transferred to the Chevron Corporation upon Chevron's acquisition of Unocal. 2.2 At the time the PSA was entered into, WSDOT intended to acquire the Former Unocal Property to construct a multimodal transportation center. The planned multimodal transportation center project is no longer a viable project. Presently, WSDOT does not have an identified need for the Property. 2.3 The PSA established a purchase price of $8,175,000, which WSDOT deposited into an escrow account created pursuant to the PSA. 2.4 As a condition precedent to WSDOT acquiring the Former Unocal Property, Chevron/Unocal is required to remediate the existing environmental contamination on the Property in accordance with the remediation criteria set forth in the PSA. Page 1 of 4 WSDOT-City of Edmonds MOU — Former Unocal Property Packet Pg. 303 8.3.b 2.5 The PSA provides that title to the Former Unocal Property will transfer to WSDOT after Chevron/Unocal obtains written confirmation from DOE that Chevron/Unocal had satisfactorily performed the Capital Remediation Work, as that term is defined in the PSA, to the extent that the Monitoring Work, as that term is defined in the PSA, may commence.' To date, DOE has not issued a written confirmation that the Capital Remediation Work has been satisfactorily performed. As such, Chevron/Unocal currently owns and is in possession of the Former Unocal Property. 2.6 The PSA provides that after the Close of Escrow, as that term is defined in the PSA, the terms and conditions of the PSA "will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns." Additionally, the terms of the PSA are required to be incorporated by reference into a deed or other legal instrument that divests WSDOT of its interest in the Former Unocal Property and that the grantee of such deed shall "specifically assume all of the obligations" of WSDOT under the PSA, including any and all monitoring obligations. To the extent the final DOE Consent Decree and associated plans conflict with the terms in the PSA, upon transfer of the Property grantee shall be responsible to resolve said conflict(s). 2.7 WSDOT currently holds an easement across the Former Unocal Property to operate, maintain, and repair a storm water line that services SR 104. Any future sale of the Property by WSDOT will include a reservation of this easement. 2.8 The City has expressed an interest in acquiring the Former Unocal Property for the purpose of expanding the adjoining Edmonds Marsh Estuary. 2.9 Upon execution of this MOU, WSDOT and the City shall negotiate and execute an Addendum to this MOU that authorizes the City's access to the information, opinions, and recommendations (excluding risk analysis) that WSDOT has obtained from Landau Associates about the Property and the Capital Remediation Work. WSDOT acknowledges that Landau's work, once accessed and understood by the City, could cause the City to reevaluate its interest in acquiring the Property on the terms contemplated herein. 3. WSDOT SALE OF THE FORMER UNOCAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY. WSDOT is statutorily authorized to sell real property under its jurisdiction pursuant to the terms and conditions of RCW 47.12.063. RCW 47.12.063(3) authorizes WSDOT to sell real property directly to a city at 1 Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and Chevron/Unocal are presently developing a Consent Decree, including a Cleanup Action Plan, for the Former Unocal Property. Page 2 of 4 WSDOT-City of Edmonds MOU — Former Unocal Property Packet Pg. 304 8.3.b fair market value. It is the intent of WSDOT to first offer the purchase of the Former Unocal Property to the City as outlined in this MOU. 4. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. The Parties understand that prior to any future sale of the Former Unocal Property by WSDOT to the City the following must have occurred: 4.1 Close of PSA Escrow: All the conditions and instruction provided for in the PSA must be satisfied and properly complied with, and the PSA Close of Escrow, as that term is defined in the PSA, shall have occurred. 4.2 Recording and Title: The deed conveying title of the Former Unocal Property to WSDOT has been recorded and title has transferred to WSDOT. 4.3 City's Confirmation of Interest: The City informs WSDOT that the City is still interested in purchasing the Former Unocal Property at fair market value. 4.4 Property Declared Surplus: WSDOT has determined, in accordance with its policies and procedures, the Former Unocal Property is no longer required for transportation purposes and that it is in the public interest to dispose of the Property. 4.5 Purchase and Sale Agreement: The Parties have executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement that details the terms and conditions by which the City may purchase the Former Unocal Property. The Purchase and Sale agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: 4.5.1 Process for Appraisal and the Determination of Purchase Price. 4.5.2 Representations and Warranties. 4.5.3 Conditions Precedent to Conveyance 4.5.4 City Funding 4.5.5 Title Insurance 4.5.6 Permitted Exceptions to title 4.5.7 Disclosures 4.5.8 Environmental Matters 4.5.9 Conveyance of Property Interest 4.5.10 Buyer's Right of Entry 4.5.11 Risk of Loss 4.5.12 Indemnifications 4.6 Fulfillment of the Terms and Conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement described in Section 4.5 above. Page 3 of 4 WSDOT-City of Edmonds MOU — Former Unocal Property Packet Pg. 305 8.3.b 4.7 Payment: The City pays WSDOT the agreed upon fair market value purchase price for the Property. 4.8 Deed: Parties successfully negotiate a deed acceptable by both WSDOT and the City. 5. OTHER PARTIES. The Parties recognize that certain entities, such as the Washington Department of Ecology, may have legal, regulatory, financial, or other oversight obligations with respect to purchase and sale of the Former Unocal Property that the Parties must accommodate. 6. FUNCTION OF MOU. 6.1 NONBINDING: The Parties agree that nothing in this MOU creates any legal or financial obligations for the parties in relation to the sale or purchase of the Former Unocal Property. 6.2 AMENDMENT: The Parties understand and agree that this MOU may be amended by agreement of both Parties. 6.3 TERMINATION: The Parties understand and agree that this MOU may be terminated in full by either party by written notice to the other. The undersigned hereto, having read this MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, including all attachments, do agree that it represents the understandings of their respective agencies with regard to the potential sale of the Former Unocal Property from WSDOT to the City. Patty Rubstello, Assistant Secretary, Washington State Ferries Date Michael Nelson, Mayor, City of Edmonds Date Page 4 of 4 WSDOT-City of Edmonds MOU — Former Unocal Property Packet Pg. 306 8.3.c Property # Escrow No.: Date Escrow Opened: Escrow Holder: AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THIS AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2005, by and between the Washington, Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington ("Buyer"), and UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation ("Company"). RECITALS: A. Company is the owner of certain real property in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, all as more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, commonly known as the Edmonds Lower Yard. B. Buyer is authorized to purchase or condemn real property pursuant to the provisions of RCWs 47.12.010 and 47.60.020. C. Buyer intends to use the property and improvements, if any, to be acquired for a multi - modal transportation center (including but not limited to ferry, vehicle, bus and train) with related services. D. Buyer has offered to purchase and Company has offered to sell the real property and improvements, if any, to Buyer upon the terms and conditions contained herein. AGREEMENT: In consideration of the above recitals, which are hereby incorporated herein by this reference, the premises and the mutual covenants, agreements and conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used in this Agreement have the respective meanings set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Section 2. Prove 2.1 Pro . That certain real property located in Snohomish County, Washington, and more particularly described on Exhibit B, together with all rights, privileges and easements appurtenant to the real property, including, but without limitation, all minerals, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances on and under the real property, all development rights, air rights, water, water rights and any and all easements, rights -of -way and other appurtenances used in connection with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the real property (collectively the "Real Property"); and 2.2 Improvements. All improvements, buildings and fixtures currently located on the Real Property, with the exception of the existing pedestrian trestle, which shall be removed by Company prior to the Close of Escrow, all apparatus, equipment and appliances used in connection with the ownership, use and operation of the Real Property such as facilities used to provide any utility services, all of which WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 307 8.3.c are described on Exhibit B-1, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (collectively, "Improvements"). 2.3 All of the items described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are hereunder collectively referred to as Ccproperty. Section 3. Purchase Price 3.1 Sale and Purchase. Buyer hereby agrees to purchase and Company hereby agrees to sell the Property, upon the terms and conditions contained herein. 3.2 Purchase Price. The total purchase price to be paid by Buyer for the Property is Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8,175,000.00) ("Purchase Price"). 3.3 Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price shall be paid as follows: 3.3.1 Initial Earnest Monev. 3.3.1.1 Deposit of Initial Earnest Monev_ Within five (5) business days after Escrow is opened, Buyer shall deposit with Escrow Holder the amount of One Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) (the "Initial Earnest Money") as initial consideration for this Agreement. Failure of Buyer to make such deposit shall be deemed an election by Buyer to terminate this Agreement. 3.3.1.2 Disbursement / Refundability of Initial Earnest Money. Upon deposit into Escrow, the Initial Earnest Money shall (i) be immediately disbursed by Escrow Holder to Company without any further instructions from the parties, and (ii) become nonrefundable except on default by Company or if the Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions in Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 6.3.2, 6.4.2, 6.14.1 and 7.4. The Initial Earnest Money shall be applicable to the Purchase Price to the extent that Escrow closes pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 3.3.2 Balance of Purchase Price. 3.3.2.1 Deposit of Balance of Purchase Price. Within thirty (30) business days after the Agreement is fully executed, Buyer shall deposit into Escrow the sum of Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8,175,000.00) less the amount of the Initial Earnest Money (`Balance of Purchase Price"). 3.3.2.2 Disbursement/Refundability of Balance of Purchase Price 3.3.2.2.1 Payment of Additional Earnest Monff. Within ten (10) business days after Company has secured the Payment and Performance Bond, the Escrow Holder shall disburse to Company an amount (the "Additional Earnest Money") equal to the lesser of (i) One Million Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,500,000.00) or (ii) the amount remaining when there is subtracted from Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8,175,000.00) the sum of the Initial Earnest Money plus the O&M Payment, plus one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Remediation Bid Price. The Additional Earnest Money shall be applicable to the Purchase Price but shall otherwise be non-refundable except on default by Company or if the Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions in Sections 4.2.5, 6.3.2, 6.14 or 7.4. 3.3.2.2.2 Payment of Operation and Maintenance Within three (3) business days after Buyer's deposit of the Balance of the Purchase Price into Escrow, the Escrow WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 308 8.3.c Holder shall disburse to Buyer the O&M Payment in the sum of Eight Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($872,500.00). 3.3.2.2.3 Payment of Capital Remediation Work. As and when Company employs third parties to perform the Capital Remediation Work, Company shall be entitled to pay such third parties for such work through draws from Escrow ("Remediation Disbursements'J. Such draws shall be requested and authorized as follows: Company shall monthly, on or before the 7'h day of each month, provide Escrow Holder (with a copy to Buyer) with a summary and reasonably detailed back up of all invoices for work actually performed that Company wishes to pay through draws from Escrow. The invoiced amounts shall be paid by the Escrow Holder on the 23d day of the month; provided that Company has provided the Progress Reports to Buyer as required in Section 6.12. 3.4 Company's Exchange Option. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Company may elect, in writing, to have this transaction be concluded as an exchange as to Company under the provisions of Section 1031 or 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Buyer shall cooperate with Company to effect such exchange; provided, however, that Buyer shall not be required to take title to any property or incur any additional liabilities, responsibilities or costs with respect to such exchange. 3.5 Indemnification of Escrow Holder. Buyer and Company each agrees to indemnify and hold Escrow Holder harmless from any claim by the other arising out of any distributions made by Escrow Holder in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of this Section 3. Section 4. Title to Property 4.1 Conveyance of Title. Company shall convey to Buyer at the Close of Escrow insurable fee simple title to the Property, by execution and delivery of a Special Warranty Deed to the Property in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E ("Deed"). 4.2 Title Insurance. 4.2.1 Preliminary Title Insurance. The parties confirm that Company has provided to Buyer a preliminary report, Preliminary Title Report No. 366420 issued by Chicago Title Company on September 3, 2004, as supplemented on September 14, 2004 by Supplemental No. 1, for an Owners extended title policy ("Preliminary Title Report") prepared by Chicago Title Company ("Title Company"). Title to the Property shall be subject to the Permitted Exceptions set forth in Section 4.3 herein. 4.2.2 Evidence of delivery of insurable fee simple title in the form required hereunder shall be the issuance by the Title Company of a standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (subject to augmentation as provided in Section 4.2.3) with liability in the amount of the Purchase Price (or such lesser amount as directed by Buyer) insuring fee simple title to the Property in Buyer, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and with such endorsements as Buyer obtains pursuant to Section 4.2.3. 4.2.3 In the event Buyer desires an extended coverage policy of title insurance, Company shall reasonably cooperate with Escrow Holder and Buyer in the preparation and issuance of such policy, including the execution of such documents as may reasonably be required; provided, however, that in no event shall any matter involved in the issuance of an extended coverage title policy delay or extend any times set forth in this Agreement. Company shall pay only the premium for a standard policy of title insurance. Buyer shall pay the difference in cost in obtaining an extended coverage policy over a standard policy, including, but not limited to, any ALTA survey required for such extended coverage policy. Buyer may further identify any endorsements desired by Buyer (which shall WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 309 8.3.c be paid for by Buyer and shall negotiate with the Title Company for such endorsements. The intent of the Parties is that all Permitted Exceptions and all available endorsements shall be indentified and the condition of title required for the Close of Escrow shall be established, prior to Company's submission of the Revised Feasibility Study to DOE. Accordingly, Buyer shall complete any survey and endorsement negotiations prior to January 3, 2005. 4.2.4 If Buyer has any objections to encumbrances identified on the survey and/or objects to the unavailability of any endorsements, Buyer shall so notify Company. Company will respond within five (5) business days whether Company will cure any survey -based objections and/or cause the Title Company to provide any requested endorsements that Buyer has been unable to obtain. If Company does not respond, it shall be deemed to have elected not to remove the encumbrance and/or provide the endorsement. If Company does not agree to remove the objected to encumbrance and/or cause the Title Company to provide the requested endorsement with the time period identified above, then Buyer may, within five (5) days after expiration of the period, terminate this Agreement, in which case the Initial Earnest Money shall be returned to Buyer. If Buyer does not terminate this Agreement, any encumbrances shown on the survey that Company does not elect to remove shall be deemed Permitted Exceptions. Buyer shall be responsible for ensuring that the Title Company honors its agreement to provide endorsements. 4.2.5 At the Close of Escrow, title must be insurable subject only to the Permitted Exceptions. If title cannot be made so insurable, then Buyer's sole remedies shall be either to (i) accept title to the Property and close; or (ii) terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Initial Earnest Money (to the extent paid), the Additional Earnest Money (to the extent paid) and any Remediation Disbursements made to Company, retain the O&M Payment (if paid), and receive from the Escrow Holder disbursement of any remaining funds then held in Escrow. 4.3 Permitted Exceptions to Title. 4.3.1 Special Exceptions 4 through 11, 15 through 17, and 19 through 22 as shown on Exhibit B to the Preliminary Title Report, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and by this reference made a part hereof. 4.3.2 All dedicated roads, streets and highways. 4.3.3 All building and zoning ordinances, laws, regulations, and restrictions by any municipal or other governmental authority applicable to the Property. 4.3.4 All general and special taxes and assessments which are a lien but not yet due and payable or for which statements have not yet been tendered (provided that Buyer may be exempt from such taxes and assessments for the period after the Close of Escrow and nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Buyer to pay any taxes or assessments as to which it is exempt). 4.3.5 All matters apparent from an inspection of the Property, or which a current, accurate survey of the Property would disclose (including but not limited to encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes; utilities and pipes; and any issues relating to obtaining or maintaining access to the Property). the Property. 4.3.6 Any and all Native American rights that may exist with respect to any portion of WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 4 Packet Pg. 310 8.3.c 4.3.7 Company and Buyer shall cooperate with one another and consult with DOE to establish covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the Property (Restrictive Covenants). The Restrictive Covenants shall contain, among other provisions, certain disclosures and use restrictions on the Property. Standard provisions contained in Restrictive Covenants with property owners and DOE are attached hereto as Exhibit D, and Company and Buyer agree that such provisions, or substantially similar provisions, will be included in the Restrictive Covenants for the Property. In addition, the parties agree that the Restrictive Covenants shall include a provision that incorporates this Agreement into the Restrictive Covenants. The Company and Buyer acknowledge and understand that DOE may require modification to these provisions, including adding provisions as appropriate, and that the Company shall negotiate the terms of the Restrictive Covenants with DOE; Provided, that the Restrictive Covenants are subject to Buyer's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Company shall negotiate the terms of the Restrictive Covenants in conjunction with the negotiation of the Approved Remediation Plan pursuant to Section 6.4. After DOE has accepted the Restrictive Covenants and until the Close of Escrow, any amendments proposed by Company or Buyer to the Restrictive Covenants shall require written concurrence by the parties prior to submittal to DOE. The Property shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and the recorded Restrictive Covenants. Buyer acknowledges and understands that Company is relying on Buyer's agreement to the terms of the Restrictive Covenants as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Section 5. Escrow. 5.1 Opening of Escrow. Buyer and Company agree that Company shall open an escrow within ten (10) days after this Agreement is executed, with Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Escrow"), as Escrow Holder . Three (3) duplicate originals of this Agreement shall be deposited in said Escrow. Escrow Holder is hereby instructed to fill in the information regarding the escrow on the first page of this Agreement and to send a duplicate original of this Agreement promptly to Buyer and Company. This Agreement shall become a part of the Escrow and shall constitute the basic instructions of Buyer and Company to Escrow Holder. However, both Buyer and Company agree to negotiate in good faith and execute such additional instructions and documents as are reasonably required to complete the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including but not limited to Close of Escrow. Any such agreement shall be writing and signed by both parties. In case of conflict, this Agreement shall govern. 5.2 Additional Deposits to Escrow by CgM . Within two (2) business days after Escrow is opened, Company shall deposit the following documents, the effective dates of which shall be left blank to be filled in as provided in Section 5.7: 5.2.1 The Deed, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E for recording, which shall be duly executed and acknowledged so as to convey to Buyer all of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; 5.2.2 A certificate of its authorized officer to the effect that, as of the date of the Close of Escrow, it is not a foreign person as defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Income Tax Regulations ("FIRPTA Certificate"), such FIRPTA Certificate to be substantially in the form described in Treasury Regulation Section 1.1446-2(b)(2)(iii)(B), or otherwise within the requirements of Section 1.1445-2(b)(2) of that regulation and any comparable state or local laws; and 5.3 Deposits For Closing. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the Closing Date, Buyer and Company shall deposit into Escrow the fully executed Restrictive Covenants and such additional funds as are necessary to fund each parry's respective share of Escrow fees and related charges as are standard practices in Snohomish County, Washington (provided that Company may elect, in lieu of making a deposit, to use the undisbursed portion of the Purchase Price, if any). In addition, Buyer shall deposit into WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 5 Packet Pg. 311 8.3.c Escrow the additional premium for an extended coverage policy of title insurance, including the costs of additional endorsements pursuant to Section 4.2.3, if applicable. 5.4 Closing Date. Unless extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Escrow shall close within thirty (30) days after Company obtains written confirmation from DOE that Company has performed the Capital Remediation Work. Closing can be extended only upon Buyer and Company agreeing to an extension in writing and signed by both Buyer and Company. 5.5 Proration. All items of income and expense, including without limitation real property taxes and assessments for the current fiscal year, if any, shall be prorated between the parties as of the date of the Close of Escrow. Buyer shall file or cause to be filed all required reports and returns incident to taxes that are due on or after the Close of Escrow, and shall pay or cause to be paid to the taxing authorities all such taxes reflected on such reports or returns. Company shall be credited with Company's prorated share at the Close of Escrow. 5.6 Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer at Close of Escrow 5.7 Close of Escrow. When all of the condition and instruction herein provided for have been satisfied and properly complied with and Escrow is ready to close in all respects, Escrow Holder shall promptly fill in the "Effective Date" of the Special Warranty Deed, the FIRPTA Affidavit and the Restrictive Covenants as the scheduled Closing Date, shall record all appropriate documents in the sequence described below and deliver to each of the appropriate parties all the documents and funds on deposit in Escrow as herein provided, subject to the payment by each party, respectively, of one-half (1/2) of the Escrow fees. 5.8 Recording Sequence. At Close of Escrow the Escrow Holder shall record all documents contemporaneously, in the following sequence: (i) Restrictive Covenants, (ii) Deed. Section 6. Matters During Escrow 6.1 Right of Entry. From and after execution of this Agreement by Company, Company agrees to allow Buyer or its agents, employees, officers, attorneys and other representatives to enter the Property during the Escrow period at Buyer's expense and risk to make any inspection of the performance of the Capital Remediation Work or of the Property as may be desired by Buyer. However, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, should Buyer wish to enter the Property for any purpose during the term of Escrow, Buyer shall first provide written notice thereof to Company detailing Buyer's purpose for entering onto the Property and the time or times Buyer wishes to make such entry. Company's approval of such entry shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, but may be conditioned at the reasonable discretion of Company. 6.2 Buyer Right of Entry Indemnification 6.2.1 To the extent allowed by law, Buyer, its successors and assign, will protect, save, and hold harmless Company, from all claims, action, costs, damages, or expenses of any nature whatsoever by reason of the acts or omission of Buyer, it's agents, contractors, or employees, arising out of or in connection with its acts or activities or the acts or activities of its agents, contractors, or employees resulting from the exercise of the right of entry as authorized in Section 6.1. Buyer further agrees to defend Company, its agents or employees, in any litigation, including payment of any costs or attorneys' fees, for any claims or action commenced, arising out of, or in connection with, the acts or activities authorized in Section 6.1. The obligation in this paragraph shall not include such claims, costs, damages, or expense to the extent caused by the acts of Company or its agents or employees; WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 312 8.3.c PROVIDED, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent acts of (a) Company, its agents, contractors, or employees, and (b) Buyer, its agents, contractors, or employees, or involves those actions covered by Ch. 4.24.115 RCW, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts of Buyer or Buyer's agents or employees. 6.2.2 Buyer specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by Buyer's own employees against Company to the extent covered by the indemnification in this Section 6.2 and, solely for the purposes of this indemnification and defense, Buyer specifically waives any immunity under the Washington State industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. 6.2.3 The indemnification provisions in this Section 6.2 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6.3 Condemnation. 6.3.1 Buyer's Power of Eminent Domain. Buyer has the power of eminent domain and has informed Company that it is of the opinion that it could acquire the Property through the exercise of that power in compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements and anticipates the potential exercise of that power if it were to become necessary to achieve Buyer's legitimate purposes. Except as provided in Section 6.3.2, nothing in this Agreement shall constitute, or be construed as constituting any limitation upon Buyer or any waiver by Buyer with respect to its exercise of the power of eminent domain in connection with any property. 6.3.2 In the event that any condemnation or eminent domain proceedings affecting all or any part of the Property are initiated prior to Close of Escrow by any entity other than Buyer or the City of Edmonds, Buyer or Company may, at any time thereafter, terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party and Escrow Holder prior to the Close of Escrow, Company shall refund to Buyer the Initial Earnest Money and Additional Earnest Money, to the extent paid, and Escrow Holder shall return all funds and documents then held in Escrow to the party depositing the same, or, alternatively, if neither party elects to terminate this transaction, such transaction shall be consummated, in which event Company shall assign to Buyer all of its right, title and interest in and to any award made or to be made in connection with such proceedings and shall permit Buyer to conduct all negotiations and enter into all agreements with respect thereto. In no event shall any such transfer reduce the Purchase Price or delay Close of Escrow hereunder, but any proceeds or awards related thereto shall be assigned by Company to Buyer at Close of Escrow hereunder. Further, Buyer agrees and covenants that it will not commence any condemnation or eminent domain proceedings against Company with respect to the Property during the term of this Agreement. Company understands and agrees that, in the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason, Buyer may, in its sole discretion, exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the Property., provided that if Buyer willfully defaults before payment of the Additional Earnest Money and subsequently commences an eminent domain action, Company shall be entitled to an additional liquidated damages payment of $400,000 (in addition to those liquidated damages provided in Section 6.13), it being the parties' intent that Buyer should not commit any willful default prior to payment of the Additional Earnest Money. 6.4 Remediation Plan and Work. 6.4.1 Company shall draft a Revised Feasibility Study for remediation of Contamination on the Property that shall contain (and specifically identify) a preferred alternative consistent with the clean up action plan and shall contain (and specifically identify) two types of work: (i) the Capital Remediation Work that includes, but is not limited to, capital work for design and WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 313 8.3.c construction of the remedy, including soil excavation and treatment, construction of groundwater treatment system, and establishment of a groundwater monitoring network, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit F, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and (ii) Monitoring Work that includes, but is not limited to, the subsequent operation of the groundwater treatment system and performance of compliance monitoring, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit G, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The Capital Remediation Work and the Monitoring Work as proposed to DOE are collectively referred to as the "Proposed Remediation Plan" and as approved by DOE are referred to as the "Approved Remediation Plan." 6.4.2 Buyer shall be given an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Remediation Plan before Company submits it to DOE and the public for approval and shall be given an opportunity to comment on proposed Restrictive Covenants as they are proposed and negotiated by Company and/or DOE. Buyer shall submit such comments to Company within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Proposed Remediation Plan or Restrictive Covenants, as applicable. Company shall give due consideration to such comments prior to making further submittals to DOE. Company shall reasonably pursue negotiation of the Proposed Remediation Plan and Restrictive Covenants. In the event Company fails to negotiate an Approved Remediation Plan, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Upon such termination, Company shall return the Initial Earnest Money to Buyer and the Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to Buyer. 6.4.3 Upon receipt of DOE's approval of the Proposed Remediation Plan, Company shall promptly transmit a copy to Buyer and shall thereafter provide Buyer with copies of any correspondence with DOE relating to performance under, enforcement of or amendment of the Approved Remediation Plan.. Company further agrees to provide Buyer with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on any proposed changes to the Approved Remediation Plan.. Buyer shall submit such comments to Company within twenty (20) days of receipt of the proposed amendment. Company shall give due consideration to such comments prior to making further submittals to or agreements with DOE. 6.5 Schedule of Performance. Company shall perform the Approved Remediation Plan according to the schedule approved by DOE in the Approved Remediation Plan (as such may be amended from time to time by the Company with Buyer comments as provided in Section 6A.3, and DOE approval). 6.6 Commencement of Approved Remediation Plan Work 6.6.1 Company shall commence Capital Remediation Work within a reasonable time after obtaining the Remediation Bid Price and in any event in accord with the schedule set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan. 6.6.2 Buyer shall not begin any Monitoring Work until after the Close of Escrow 6.7 ComDanv's Existing Remediation Obligations. Pursuant to the Agreed Order DE 92TC-N328 between Company and DOE executed on October 25, 1993, Company is obligated to and is performing certain remediation activities on the Property ("Existing Remediation Obligations'). Company shall continue to perform the Existing Remediation Obligations until such time DOE agrees in writing otherwise, and nothing herein shall be construed to alter such obligations. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 314 8.3.c 6.8 Payment for Coital Remediation Work 6.8.1 Company has agreed to pay for the Capital Remediation Work out of funds deposited by Buyer into Escrow and, if such funds are not sufficient, Company agrees to pay any remaining balance. 6.8.2 Payment and Performance Bond. 6.8.2.1 Prior to commencing any Capital Remediation Work, Company shall secure a payment and performance bond in an amount equal to or more than the Remediation Bid Price established pursuant to Section 6.10. ("Payment and Performance Bond'). Company shall provide to Buyer a copy of the Payment and Performance Bond within ten (10) days of receipt from surety. The surety shall not release the Payment and Performance Bond until the Company has received consent from DOE that the Monitoring Work may commence. 6.8.2.2 The Payment and Performance Bond shall: Buyer; 6.8.2.2.1 Be on a Company -procured form reasonably acceptable to 6.8.2.2.2 Be signed by a surety (or sureties) that: (i) Is registered with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner; and (ii) Appears on the current Authorized Insurance List in the State of Washington published by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. 6.8.2.2.3 Be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Capital Remediation Work by the Company or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or lower level tier subcontractors of Company within the schedule approved by DOE in the Approved Remediation Plan (as may be amended from time to time by DOE); and 6.8.2.2.4 Guaranty that the surety shall arrange for the proper completion of the Capital Remediation Work if Company fails to properly perform and/or complete the Capital Remediation Work; and 6.8.2.2.5 Guaranty that the surety shall indemnify, defend, and protect Buyer against any claim of direct or indirect loss resulting from the failure of the Company (or the contractors, subcontractors, or lower tier subcontractors of the Company) to pay all laborers, mechanics, contractors, subcontractors, lower tier subcontractors, materialperson, or any other person who provides supplies or provisions for carrying out the Capital Remediation Work. 6.8.2.3 Buyer may require said sureties or surety companies on the Payment and Performance Bond to appear and qualify themselves as provided above. If the surety or sureties thereafter cease to qualify, Buyer may, upon written demand, require Company to furnish additional surety to cover any remaining Capital Remediation Work. Until the added surety is furnished, disbursements from Escrow by the Escrow Holder, as provided in Section 33.2.2.3, shall cease. 6.9 Payment for Monitoring Work With respect to Monitoring Work, Company will pay Buyer out of Escrow, within three (3) business days after Buyer's making the deposit specified in Section 33.2.1, the sum of Eight Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 315 8.3.c ($872,500.00) ("O&M Payment"). Buyer agrees to accept the O&M Payment as full and complete payment for any Monitoring Work. If the actual cost of the Monitoring Work is less than the O&M Payment, Buyer shall retain the difference; if the actual cost of the Monitoring Work is greater than the O&M Payment, Buyer shall pay for the difference. 6.10 Remediation Bid Price. Upon receipt of the Approved Remediation Plan and within the schedule of performance as set forth therein, Company shall, in its discretion, negotiate or bid the Capital Remediation Work with a third party or parties selected by Company. The final agreed price for the Capital Remediation Work resulting from such negotiations or bids (which price myst be satisfactory to Company in its discretion) is referred to herein as the "Remediation Bid Price." 6.11 Company shall be solely responsible to perform the Capital Remediation Work and shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of workers performing the Capital Remediation Work. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that Buyer does not control or direct any aspect of the Capital Remediation Work. Company, its successors and assigns, will protect, save, defend, and hold harmless Buyer, its authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages, or expenses of any nature whatsoever to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of Company, its agents, contractors, consultants, or employees related to the Capital Remediation Work, provided that this indemnity shall not apply to claims based on the existence of Contamination on the Property after Close of Escrow and/or alleged exposures to Contamination from the Property after Close of Escrow. Further, the obligations in this section shall not include such claims, costs, damages, or expenses to the extent caused by the acts of Buyer or its agents, contractors, consultants or employees; PROVIDED further, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent acts of (a) Buyer, or its agents, contractors, consultants or employees and (b) Company, or its agents, contractors, consultants, or employees, or involves those actions covered by Ch. 4.24.115 RCW, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts of Company or Company's agents, contractors, consultants, or employees. Company specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by Company's own employees against Buyer to the extent covered by the indemnification in this Section 6.11 and, solely for the purposes of this indemnification and defense, Company specifically waives any immunity under the Washington State industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The indemnification provisions in this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6.12 Progress Reports. During the term of this Agreement, Company shall provide Buyer with a copy of the Progress Reports furnished DOE on the progress of the Capital Remediation Work. 6.13 CompansLiquidated Damages. 6.13.1 Buyer and Company agree that if Company terminates this Agreement due to a default by Buyer, Company will suffer damages (including but not limited to loss of other potential buyers, unrecoverable marketing, sales and processing costs and costs of holding Property beyond the term of Escrow and potential loss of market value), and will be entitled to compensation for these damages, but such damages will be extremely difficult and impractical to ascertain because the damages to which the Company will be entitled in a court of law will be based in part on the difference between the actual value of the Property at the scheduled Close of Escrow and the Purchase Price for the property as set forth in this Agreement, which difference must be based on opinions of value of the Property, which can vary in significant amounts; and it is impossible to predict, as of the date hereof, whether the value of the Property will increase or decrease as of the scheduled Close of Escrow, and Buyer desires to limit the amount of damages for which Buyer might be liable, and Buyer and Company wish to avoid the costs and lengthy delays which would result if the Company filed a lawsuit to collect its damages for breach of this Agreement. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 10 Packet Pg. 316 8.3.c 6.13.2 In the event of termination of this Agreement by Company as a result of a default by Buyer, Company shall be entitled to the following liquidated damages, which shall constitute the sole and exclusive remedy of Company on account of the default of Buyer. 6.13.2.1 The amount of the Initial Earnest Money and, if and to the extent paid the Additional Earnest Money and any payments made for Capital Remediation Work shall constitute liquidated damages to Company, and Buyer shall retain the O&M Payment and the Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to Buyer (including the Additional Earnest Money if not yet disbursed to Buyer). Upon termination of this Agreement and payment of all required liquidated damages, the Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to the Buyer and shall return the Deed to Company. 6.13.2.2 The parties recognize that the Approved Remediation Plan will include elements that Company would normally not include in its rmediation plan for the Property and, accordingly, from and after submission of the Revised Feasibility Study to DOE, the minimum amount of liquidated damages shall be the difference between the reasonably estimated cost of the Approved Remediation Plan (or the Revised Feasibility Study, if the Approved Remediation Plan has not been issued) and the amount of the reasonably estimated cost of the clean up of the Property, which is reasonably believed DOE would have approved prior to the submission of the Revised Feasibility Study, to a maximum amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($600,000.00) (such difference being referred to as the "Enhanced Remediation Compensation). 6.13.2.3 To the extent Company has received and retains the Initial Earnest Money and/or the Additional Earnest Money and/or payments for Capital Remediation Work, such sums shall be credited against the Enhanced Remediation Compensation, and it is therefore the expectation of the parties that upon payment of the Additional Earnest Money, any sums due for the Enhanced Remediation Compensation will be fully covered. The liquidated damages described above shall constitute the sole and exclusive remedy of Company on account of termination of the Agreement based on the default by Buyer from and after Company submits the Revised Feasibility Study to DOE. Upon such termination of this Agreement, the Escrow Holder shall disburse to Company from Escrow the Enhanced Remediation Compensation, to the extent any amount remains owing, disburse to Buyer any remaining funds then held in Escrow, and return the Deed to Company. 6.14 Buyer's Election of Remedies Before Closing In the event of a default or breach of this Agreement by Company, Buyer may at its sole discretion elect to either: 6.14.1 Terminate this Agreement, retain the O&M Payments, and Company shall refund to Buyer the Initial Earnest Money, the Additional Earnest Money (to the extent paid) and any payments made for Capital Remediation Work, and Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to Buyer and return the Deed to Company; or 6.14.2 Obtain specific performance through completion of the Capital Remediation Work under the Payment and Performance Bond and recording the Deed. 6.15 Buyer's Election of Remedies After Closin,�. In the event of a default or breach of this Agreement by Company after Closing (including any breach of any representation or warranty of Company), Buyer shall be entitled, as its sole and exclusive remedies, to (i) obtain specific performance, or (ii) perform any physical work that Company has failed to perform (or that is required to cure the breach of any representation or warranty) and/or defend any action and pay any judgment that Company has fail to defend and/or pay as required hereunder, and to recover from Company the cost of such cure WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 11 Packet Pg. 317 8.3.c (including attorneys fees at rates normally charged in the private sector, to the extent Buyer incurs such fees in the defense of any action that Company was required to defend), together with statutory interest from the time of expenditure. 6.16 Notice and Opportunity to Cure. If either party believes the other to be in default hereunder, it shall deliver to the defaulting party written notice of the default. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days to cure the default; provided that if the default is of such a nature that the cure cannot with diligence be completed within such time period and the defaulting party has commenced meaningful steps to cure promptly after receiving the default notice, the defaulting party shall have such additional period of time as is reasonably necessary to effect cure using reasonable best efforts to complete such cure as expeditiously as practical, provided further that no such cure period shall extend the dates under the schedule of performance as set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan. Section 7. Conditions Outside of Escrow,• Buyer's Confirmation of Due Diligence 7.1 Company's Disclosures. Company has provided Buyer the opportunity to review the following documents, which are hereinafter referred to as "Disclosure Documents": (i) environmental reports provided to DOE and/or to other governmental agencies in connection with the Property, if any; and (ii) pertinent leases, contracts, soils engineering reports, soils compaction reports, toxic and geological studies, endangered species studies, conserved habitat and/or wetlands studies, development agreements, letters or reports received from governmental entities and other documents pertaining to the Property (excluding, however, any documents disclosed on the Preliminary Title Report or any supplementary report). Buyer acknowledges and accepts that the Disclosure Documents include only those documents in existence and actually known to the Company representative, Mark Brearley, the Project Professional at Company with the most recent direct responsibility for the Property, which the foregoing reasonably believes would be material to a reasonable person or entity purchasing the Property. These are the documents actually relied upon by Mr. Brearley in making environmental decisions and representations relating to the Interim Action Plan and in developing the Feasibility Study and constitute his regular business files and include all documents that he believes relevant to that work and decisions, and no documents have been removed or excluded from those files in contemplation of this transaction. A list of the Disclosure Documents is set forth on Exhibit K attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 7.2 Company's Representations. In order to induce Buyer to enter into this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, Company makes the representations and warranties set forth in Section 7.2.1 to Buyer as of the date of this Agreement and again as of the Closing Date: 7.2.1 Company represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: 7.2.1.1 Liti ation. Except as provided in Section 8.4, there is no claim, litigation, proceeding or governmental investigation with which Company has been served, or, so far as is known to Company, threatened against Company, that would affect Company's ability to convey the Property as provided herein. 7.2.1.2 No Defaults. Neither the execution of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of the terms hereof, will conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under, any agreement or instrument entered into by Company and burdening the Real Property. 7.2.1.3 No Options, Sales or Assignments. There are no existing options or agreements to sell the Real Property or any portion thereof to any party other than Buyer. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 12 Packet Pg. 318 8.3.c 7.2.1.4 Tenant Leases, Licenses, Other Agreements There are no leases, licenses or other agreements granting any person or persons the right to use or occupy the Real Property or any portion thereof, except as reflected in the Preliminary Title Report. 7.2.1.5 Construction Liens. To the extent any improvements have been made or will be made to the Real Property prior to the Closing Date which might form the basis of mechanics' or materialperson's liens, Company agrees to keep the Real Property free from (or use statutory process to bond against) any liens that would survive Closing, and indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Buyer from any and all such liens and all attorneys' fees and other costs incurred by reason thereof. 7.2.1.6 Special Assessments. Company has not been notified during Company's ownership of the Real Property of contemplated improvements to the Real Property or the area surrounding the Real Property (except Buyer's potential use of the Property) which would result in the assessment of a special improvement or similar lien against the Real Property. 7.3 NO OTHER OBLIGATIONS, REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES 7.3.1 COMPANY HAS UNDERTAKEN CERTAIN REMEDITION OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 6 AND 8.2 AND HAS MADE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7. SUBJECT TO SUCH COMPANY OBLIGATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, BUYER AGREES THAT THE PROPERTY IS TO BE SOLD TO AND ACCEPTED BY BUYER "AS IS" AND "WHERE IS," WITH ALL FAULTS, IF ANY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, AND COMPANY DOES HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OF ANY KIND TO BUYER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES RELATING TO THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, IF ANY, OR THE HABITABILITY OF THE PROPERTY, IMPROVEMENTS OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, IF ANY, OR THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 7.3.2 BUYER COVENANTS, REPRESENTS AND WARRANTS THAT (IJ BUYER HAS INSPECTED OR WILL INSPECT THE REAL PROPERTY, THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY, IF ANY, AND ALL MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHICH BUYER DESIRES; (II) NEITHER COMPANY NOR ANYONE ON COMPANY'S BEHALF HAS MADE, OR IS MAKING, ANY WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING THE REAL PROPERTY OR THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY, IF ANY, OTHER THAN THOSE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, IF ANY; (III) BUYER IS RELYING SOLELY ON BUYER'S OWN INVESTIGATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, IF ANY, AND ALL MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITION OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, IF ANY, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, IF ANY, THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT, AND THE GEO- TECHNICAL CONDITION OF THE SOIL AND SUBSOIL; AND (IV) EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, BUYER IS PURCHASING THE REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS "AS IS." 7.3.3 BUYER FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, IN NO EVENT SHALL COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 13 Packet Pg. 319 8.3.c DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF USE, RENTS, OR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, DIMINUTION IN VALUE, OR MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS OR FEAR OF INJURY OR DISEASE. 7.3.4 BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT COMPANY MAKES NO, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY, WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS. 7.4 Risk of Loss. 7.4.1 Risk of loss with respect to the Property shall pass to Buyer at the Close of Escrow. 7.4.2 In the event of any material damage or destruction to the Property that occurs prior to the Close of Escrow, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such decision to the Company within thirty (30) business days after receiving written notice from the Company of such damage or destruction, and Buyer shall retain the O&M Payments, and Company shall refund to Buyer the Initial Earnest Money, the Additional Earnest Money (to the extent paid) and any payments made for Capital Remediation Work and Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to Buyer and return the Deed to Company. For the purposes of this section "material damage or destruction of the Property" shall mean damage or loss which is greater than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($500,000.00) to repair or restore. 7.4.3 If Buyer decides to accept the Property in its then condition following a material damage or destruction of the Property, the Buyer shall receive all proceeds of insurance awards payable to Company by reason of such damage or destruction. Section 8. Environmental Matters 8.1 Prior Use / Transfer of Liability / Release. 8.1.1 Prior Use /Company's Responsibility for Capital Remediation Work. Buyer acknowledges (i) that the Property was once used for the storage and handling of fuel hydrocarbons, and that fuel hydrocarbons were transported across the Property and the Adjacent Properties, identified in Exhibit I, (ii) that Contamination may be present on the Property as the result of the transportation and handling of fuel hydrocarbons; (iii) that there exists no "no further action" letter or equivalent from the applicable Agency for any of the Property, that no such letters may ever be issued in connection with the Property, that Company will complete the Capital Remediation Work but will not otherwise take any action to obtain any such "no further action" letters for the Property, and that Buyer will be responsible for any monitoring and/or remediation of Contamination required after the Capital Remediation Work is complete and will endeavor to obtain a no further action letter from the applicable agency following Close of Escrow; and (iv) Buyer has had an extensive oportunity to otherwise perform and has performed environmental due diligence on the Property. Buyer hereby agrees and stipulates that written acknowledgement by DOE that the Capital Remediation Work as set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan has been completed to the extent that, excepting operation and maintenance of the constructed groundwater treatment system as set forth in Exhibit G, and that the groundwater recovery and treatment system has demonstrated the capability of achieving design goals including, but not limited to, hydraulic capture and treatment efficiency goals, described in the Approved Remediation Plan, shall be deemed conclusive evidence that Company has satisfied its obligation to perform the Capital Remediation Work. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 14 Packet Pg. 320 8.3.c 8.1.2 Disclosure. Buyer shall disclose to any purchaser, lessee or licensee of the Property disclosures as required by law and as set forth in the recorded Restrictive Covenants. 8.1.3 Transfer of Responsibility. In full recognition of the the matters set forth in Section 8.1.1 above, and excepting only to the extent expressly set forth in Sections 6.11, 8.2, 8.4 and 9.2 below, Buyer, on behalf of Buyer and its affiliated or successor entities, their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, tenants, lessees, invitees, or guests, or by any contractor or subcontractor employed by Buyer, or by the agents, servants, employees, invitees or guests of any such tenant, lessee, contractor or subcontractor (individually and collectively, the `Buyer Group'), agrees that it is the express intent of the parties that: (i) upon Close of Escrow, the risk of any Contamination on, under, within or migrating from the Property, and the responsibility for monitoring and/or remediation of any such Contamination and of defending and/or paying any claim based on such Contamination shall shift to Buyer, and (ii) Company shall have no obligation for any Contamination, on, under, within, or migrating from the Property, including but not limited to any monitoring and/or remediation thereof. Expressly, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, excepting only to the extent expressly set forth in Sections 6.11, 8.2, 8.4 and 9.2 below, Company shall have no liability for monitoring, remediation, defense costs or damages relating to any Contamination of the Property, for any subsequent imposition upon the Company as a result of factors not previously known or for changes in any laws, regulations, guidelines or other criteria concerning appropriate levels of cleanup of such Contamination, or for any third -party claims resulting from any such Contamination. 8.1.4 Release. Excepting only Company's obligation to perform the Capital Remediation Work and except to the extent expressly set forth in Sections 8.2, 8.4 and 9.2, Buyer hereby releases Company and each member of Company Group from all claims, liability, damages, demands, costs, expenses, and causes of action of all kinds (including but not limited to claims for contribution under statute or common law), arising out of or in connection with the existence, assessment, monitoring or remediation of Contamination upon, under, in, or migrating from the soils, sediments, groundwater, bodies of water, surface waters, or Improvements of the Property, including without limitation any claims for death, bodily injury, illness, or property damage or for any claims for any special, indirect, or consequential damages (including but not limited to claims for loss of use, rents, anticipated profit or business opportunity, or business interruption, diminution in value, natural resources damages, or mental or emotional distress or fear of injury or illness), trespass, nuisance or otherwise, for any response costs it may incur with respect to the Property, under any existing or future federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, legal cause of action or theory of any kind, including but not limited to any claim under CERCLA, RCRA, MTCA, or similar or comparable state, federal, or local laws (individually and collectively, "Released Claims"). Buyer further recognizes that there is a risk, that subsequent to the Closing, Buyer will incur Released Claims or suffer loss, damage or injuries which are in some way caused by the matters which are the subject of this release, and which may be unknown or unanticipated at the time of Close of Escrow, and, subject to Section 10.12, Buyer assumes this risk and agrees that this release shall apply to all such unknown or unanticipated Released Claims, loss, damage, or injury. 8.2 Company's Limited Remediation Commitment. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, subject to the provisions of this Section 8.2, in the event Buyer finds any Applicable Contamination on or within the Property, which Buyer proves has migrated onto the Property from the Adjacent Properties after Close of Escrow ("Migrated Contamination'l and such Migrated Contamination has not been caused or exacerbated by the activities of Buyer or any member of Buyer Group provided that Buyer's operation and maintenance according to design specifications of the groundwater recovery and treatment system constructed as part of the Capital Remediation Work and operated by Buyer in accordance with the Approved Remediation Plan shall not be deemed a "cause or exacerbation" of migration, and in the event that environmental investigation and/or remediation is required by applicable law or regulation as further specified in Section 8.2.5 below, then Company shall, WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 15 Packet Pg. 321 8.3.c at its sole cost and expense, investigate and remediate or cause others to investigate and remediate such Migrated Contamination on or within the Property in accordance with a remediation plan approved by the Agency and Buyer; provided, however, that Company's obligations hereunder shall be expressly subject to the following limitations and conditions: 8.2.1 In the event Buyer shall discover any Migrated Contamination or shall receive notice or claim from an Agency of such Migrated Contamination, it shall promptly give Company written notice of said discovery or notice or claim (which notice shall in any event be given within 30 days), addressed as set forth in the notices provision of this Agreement. 8.2.2 Buyer shall cooperate with Company by granting Company a license (which shall contain reasonable terms and conditions applicable to Company, its agents and consultants for access to the Property), upon reasonable notice and at mutually convenient times, for prompt access to the Property at no cost to Company, for the purpose of investigating any claim of Migrated Contamination, and taking any necessary, appropriate, or desirable response actions to actual or alleged Migrated Contamination, including, without limitation, excavation, sampling, or installing, operating, maintaining or removing any monitoring or remedial equipment, devices or systems ("Migrated Contamination Activities"). Company shall coordinate any Migrated Contamination Activities so as to minimise, to the fullest extent practical, any disruption of Buyer's activities on the Property. Upon completion of Migrated Contamination Activities, Company shall restore the Property to its original condition as it existed prior to Company's entrance on the Property or to a condition mutually agreed to in writing by the parties. This restoration work shall be done at the sole expense of Company and to the reasonable satisfaction of Buyer. 8.2.3 Company's obligations under this Section 8.2 extend only to investigation and remediation of Migrated Contamination made necessary by Company's and Company's Group's activities, and do not extend to liability for any Contamination or migration or exacerbation of Migrated Contamination (i) due to acts or omissions of Buyer or any member of the Buyer Group or Buyer's successors or assigns, or (ii) due to the acts or omissions of any third party, including but not limited to BNSF and other past, present and future owners, invitees, and users of the right of way adjacent to the Property. 8.2.4 Company's obligations under this Section 8.2 are limited to the investigation and remediation of Migrated Contamination and do not extend to any responsibilities or claims assumed by Buyer under Section 8.1.3 or released by Buyer pursuant to Section 8.1.4. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, but subject to Company's obligation to minimise, to the fullest extent practical, any disruption of Buyer's activities on the Property as a result of Company's Migrated Contamination Activities, Company's obligations hereunder do not extend to any consequential damages, or to any cost or expense for construction, engineering, operation or maintenance requirements for any development of the Property necessary or claimed to be necessary by reason of any Contamination. 8.2.5 Company's obligations under this Section 8.2 shall be in accordance with a clean up plan approved by Agency, provided that Company's obligations shall apply only with respect to Contamination levels in excess of the levels specified under the Approved Remediation Plan and Company shall not be responsible in any way for any changes in MTCA or other laws or otherwise for any more stringent cleanup levels after adoption of the Approved Remediation Plan. 8.2.6 Company Indemnification. 8.2.6.1 Subject to Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.4, Company, its successors and assigns, will protect, save, defend, and hold harmless Buyer, its authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages, or expenses of any nature whatsoever to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of Company Group and any of its agents, contractors, consultants, or employees in carrying out Company's remediation of Migrated Contamination. The obligations in this section shall not include WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 16 Packet Pg. 322 8.3.c such claims, costs, damages, or expenses to the extent caused by the acts of Buyer or its agents, contractors, consultants or employees; PROVIDED further, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent acts of (a) Buyer, or its agents, contractors, consultants or employees and (b) Company Group, or any of its agents, contractors, consultants, or employees, or involves those actions covered by Ch. 4.24.115 RCW, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts of Company or Company's agents, contractors, consultants, or employees. 8.2.6.2 Company specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by Company's own employees against Buyer to the extent covered by the indemnification of Section 8.2.6.1 and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, Company specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. 8.2.6.3 The indemnification provisions in this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8.3 Company Insurance. During such times Company will be entering onto the Property to perform Migrated Contamination Activities, Company shall, at its sole expense, secure and maintain in effect a policy providing public liability insurance issued by an insurer licensed to conduct business in the State of Washington. The insurance policy shall provide liability coverage for any and all claims of bodily injury, property damage, and personal injury arising from Company's use of the Property. The insurance policy required by this section shall provide coverage as follows: 8.3.1 Coverage in an amount no less than Two Million and no/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) bodily injury and property damage or combined single limit of liability per occurrence, with a general aggregate limit of no less than Four Million and no/l00 Dollars ($4,000,000.00) per policy period. Such aggregate limits shall apply for this Property location, and coverage under said policy shall be triggered on an "occurrence basis," not on a "claims made" basis. 8.3.2 Coverage required by this section shall be at least as broad as that provided by the most current Commercial General Liability Policy form ISO (Insurance Services Office, Inc.) policy form CG 00 0107 98, or its equivalent without modification, and shall be endorsed to include pollution liability coverage under ISO form CG 00 39 10 90, or its equivalent without modification, in amounts previously stated. The use of an equivalent form shall require prior written approval by the Buyer. Company shall provide additional endorsements and/or increase the policy limits at its sole cost, when and if the Buyer deems it necessary due to the Buyer's use of the Property, within ten (10) days of Buyer's written request to do so. 8.3.3 The Buyer shall be named as an additional insured by endorsement of the liability policy required by this section utilizing ISO Form 2026 (Additional Insured — Designated Person or Organization) or its equivalent without modification. The endorsement shall require the insurer to provide the Buyer with not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice before any cancellation of the coverage required by this section. 8.3.4 No changes whatsoever shall be initiated as to the coverage without prior written approval by the Buyer and written authorization by the Buyer to make any requested changes. 8.3.5 Unless approved by the Buyer in advance and in writing, the liability coverage required by this section shall not be subject to any deductible or self -insured retentions of liability greater than: Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($5,000.00) per occurrence. The payment of any such deductible or self -insured retention of liability amounts remains the sole responsibility of the Company. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 17 Packet Pg. 323 8.3.c 8.3.6 The Company assumes all obligations for premium payment, and in the event of nonpayment, the Company is obligated to reimburse the Buyer the cost of maintaining the insurance coverage and any legal fees incurred in enforcing such reimbursement should the Company fail to pay the policy premiums. 8.3.7 Coverage obtained by the Company in compliance with this section shall not be deemed as having relieved the Company of any liability in excess of such coverage. 8.3.8 The Company shall provide the Buyer with a certificate of insurance reflecting the insurance coverage required by this section within ten (10) business days of the commencement of Mitigated Contamination Activities. Such certificates shall also be provided upon renewal of said policies and changes in carriers. 8.3.9 Notwithstanding the above, the Company may elect to proceed pursuant to the Company's primary liability policy, which shall provide an equivalent or greater level of insurance. In the event of default of the Company's primary liability policy, the prior provisions of Section 8.3 shall apply. 8.4 Pending Lawsuit. 8.4.1 Company acknowledges that there is in existence a pending lawsuit against Company by Harbor Square Associates, LLC and the Port of Edmonds filed under Snohomish County Cause No. 03-2-12545-6 alleging that property adjacent to the Property was contaminated by Company ("Pending Lawsuit"). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, including but not limited to any release or undertaking to defend by Buyer, Company shall remain responsible for the defense of such action and shall be responsible for any liability, if any, found thereunder. 8.4.2 Company, its successors and assigns, will protect, save, defend and hold harmless Buyer, its authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages, or expenses of any nature whatsoever to the extent based on the pre -Closing acts of Company, its agents, contractors, consultants, or employees that are the subject of the Pending Lawsuit, including the cost of defense of Buyer if Buyer is alleged to be liable for the pre -Closing acts of Company or pre -Closing Contamination of property adjacent to the Property as alleged in the Pending Lawsuit. Section 9 Responsibility for Third Party Claims 9.1 Buyer's Responsibility for Third Party Claims 9.1.1 Buyer acknowledges that, excepting only to the extent expressly set forth in Sections 6.11, 8.2, 8.4 and Section 9.2, Buyer is assuming, effective on the Close of Escrow, full responsibilty for the Property and all claims by or obligations to third parties relating to the Property, its development or operations. The parties acknowledge that Company or Company Group may be named in any claim or action brought by a third party notwithstanding that Buyer has accepted responsibility. In order to implement Buyer's assumption of responsibility, Buyer, for itself and on behalf of Buyer Group, shall be solely responsible for the defense and payment (if required) of any and all claims, liability, damages, demands, costs, expenses, and causes of action of all kinds, including but not limited to claims of the death, illness, or injury of any person or persons, including but not limited to members of Buyer Group, and/or from damage to or loss or destruction of any property (real or personal) arising out of or in connection with (i) the performance or non-performance of any action or obligation under this Agreement by Buyer Group; or (ii) the possession or use of or operation on, under or within the Property or the holding of any interest in the Property or any condition existing or occurring on, under or within the Property after Close of Escrow, including but not limited to matters relating to any Contamination existing on, under or within, or migrating from the Property (all of the foregoing individually and WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 18 Packet Pg. 324 8.3.c collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Assumed Claims"). Buyer's obligations under this Section 9.1 shall apply in every event, whether such Assumed Claims arise pursuant to subsections (i) or (ii) above, whether Buyer or Buyer Group is named in the claim, whether Company is alleged or proven to have been negligent, actively or passively, or to be strictly or absolutely liable. Buyer's obligations in this Section 9.1.1 shall not include such claims, costs, damages, or expenses to the extent caused by the acts of Company Group or any of its agents, employees, contractors or consultants; Provided that, other than claims based on the existence of Contamination on the Property after Closing of Escrow and/or alleged exposures to Contamination of the Property after Closing of Escrow, which claims shall be covered by this Section 9.1.1 regardless of the alleged cause. 9.1.2 Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, however, Buyer shall not be required to indemnify Company Group hereunder for any claim made by a person who is not a government entity or who is not a member of the Buyer Group which claim Buyer proves is the result of Migrated Contamination which has not been exacerbated by the acts of any member of the Buyer Group ("Third Party Claims"). 9.1.3 Buyer's releases and assumption of responsibilities in this Section 9.1 shall not be construed to mean that Company has, in any way, any liability to Buyer Group for claims not covered by such releases and/or assumptions of responsibilities. 9.1.4 In the event the obligations hereunder provided for are found in a Final Judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction to exceed that permitted by applicable law, such obligations shall be construed so as to create the maximum protection for Company Group. 9.1.5 Buyer's obligations with respect to Assumed Claims shall survive any termination of this Agreement; provided, however, that in the event of a termination of this Agreement without Escrow closing, Buyer's obligations hereunder shall be limited to Assumed Claims arising under Section 9.1.1 (i) above. 9.1.6 For the limited purpose of this Section 9.1, Buyer expressly waives immunity from suit under the Industrial Insurance Act (Title 51 RCW) to the extent that such waiver is expressly required by the laws of Washington. 9.1.7 As Buyer is assuming ownership and responsibility for the Property (including any obligations relating to remediation and/or monitoring of Contamination arising out of conditions on the Property), any obligations of Company pursuant to that certain Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions dated April 20, 2001 for the property described on Exhibit J (the "Marina Beach Agreement") or the Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Environmental and Use Restrictions, Waiver and Release recorded under Snohomish County Auditor's Number 20012200730 and arising out of Contamination emanating from the Property shall be deemed assumed by Buyer as of Closing, and any claims relating thereto shall be Assumed Claims. 9.2 Company's Responsibility for Third Party Claims Company acknowledges that although no evidence of existing offsite migration of Contamination from the Property, excepting the claims set forth in the pending lawsuit described in Section 8.4 above, is currently known to exist, it is possible that future claims of migration of Contamination onto offsite properties resulting from Company's historical operations on the Property could be made against the Company. Notwithstanding Buyer's liability for potential environmental releases after the Close of Escrow, Company shall retain liability for claims made with respect to environmental migration of Contamination onto offsite properties resulting from Company's historical operations on the Property to the extent the physical migration of Contamination occurred prior to Close of Escrow. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 19 Packet Pg. 325 8.3.c Section 10. General Provisions 10.1 Assi meat. 10.1.1 Assignment Prior to Close of Escrow. Neither party shall assign its interest in this Agreement prior the Close of Escrow. 10.1.2 Assignment After Close of Escrow. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns. After the Close of Escrow either party may assign their interests in this Agreement that survive the Close of Escrow to a third party; provided that the assignee has assumed all the obligations, duties and liabilities, then in effect, of the assignor under this Agreement. The assignor agrees to incorporate the terms of this Agreement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Property, and to require that the assignee/grantee specifically assume all of the obligations of Assignor under this Agreement. The assignor further agrees to give written notice to the other party of the transfer of any interest in all or a portion of the Property on the date of closing for such transfer. Such notice to the other party shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the assignee or the assignee's representative. The failure of the assignor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Agreement or limit its enforceability in any way. If Buyer assigns this Agreement to another Public Agency, Buyer shall be relieved of liability accruing hereunder after the date of such assignment. If Buyer assigns this Agreement to any person or entity other than another Public Agency, Buyer shall remain liable for Buyer's responsibilities and obligations hereunder until written confirmation from Ecology that the Monitoring Work has been completed in accordance with the Approved Remediation Plan and such monitoring is no longer required. 10.2 No Partnership or Agency. Buyer and Company agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture or of any other form of legal association which would impose liability upon one party for the act or failure to act of another party. 10.3 Approvals. All approvals called for herein shall be in writing and all time limits, unless otherwise stated, shall commence upon the opening of Escrow which shall be the date that a duly executed duplicate original of this Agreement is deposited into Escrow by the parties hereto. 10.4 Commission(s). Buyer and Company each hereby warrants and represents to the other that such party has not employed any broker, finder or agent, and has not agreed to pay or otherwise include any brokerage fee, finder's fee or commission with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement nor has such party dealt with anyone purporting to act in the capacity of a broker or finder with respect thereto. Buyer hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold Company and Company Group harmless from any claims resulting from a breach of this section by Buyer, and Company hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold Buyer and Buyer Group harmless from any claims resulting from a breach of this section by Company. 10.5 Notices. Any notices, requests, approvals or elections hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when (a) personally served, or (b) three (3) days after mailing by certified or registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (c) one (1) day after deposit with a national overnight courier for next -day delivery, addressed to Buyer as follows: WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 20 Packet Pg. 326 8.3.c Attn: Tim McGuigan Director of Contracts and Legal Services 2911 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 515-3601 with a copy to: Attn: Russ East Director, Terminal Engineering 2911 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 515-3701 with a copy to: Attn: Bryce Brown, Esq. Senior Counsel Office of the Attorney General 905 Plum Street PO Box 40113 Olympia, WA 98504-0113 Telephone: (360) 753-4962 and addressed to Company as follows: Unocal RRMC P.O. Box 399 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Mark Brearley Facsimile: (425) 640-7601 Telephone: (425) 640-7610 with two copies to: Union Oil Company of California Attn: All Tracy, Esq. And Attn: Karen Bruton Facsimile: (714) 577-3322 (Ms. Bruton) Facsimile: (714) 577-2980 (Ms. Tracy) Telephone: (714) 577-2808 (Ms. Bruton) Telephone: (714) 577-3542 (Ms. Tracy) WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 21 Packet Pg. 327 8.3.c with a copy to: Buck & Gordon, PLLC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Attn: William Block, Esq. Facsimile: (206) 382-9540 Telephone: (206) 626-0675 and addressed to ESCROW HOLDER as follows: Chicago Title Company 3030 Hoyt Avenue Everett, WA 98201 Telephone: (425) 259-8205 10.6 Integration. This instrument and the exhibits hereto contain the entire agreement between Buyer and Company respecting the Property and the subject matter of this Agreement. Any agreements or representations covering the Property or the subject matter of this Agreement that are not set forth in this Agreement are of no effect. 10.7 Survival. The covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made in this Agreement shall survive the Close of Escrow unimpaired and shall not merge into the conveyance documents and the recordation thereof. 10.8 Interpretation. Each party has reviewed this Agreement, and any question of doubtful interpretation shall not be resolved by any rule or interpretation providing for interpretation against the drafting party. This Agreement shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington. The captions and headings contained herein are for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified or the meaning otherwise requires, Section references contained herein refer to this Agreement. 10.9 Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 10.10 Time. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, should the calculation of any time period provided for herein result in any obligation becoming due upon, or scheduled time for an event occurring on, a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then such due date or scheduled time shall be delayed until the next business day. 10.11 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in three counterparts and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one Agreement binding on the parties hereto. 10.12 Severability. Should any provisions of this Agreement be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the party who lost the benefit of such provision shall be compensated by the other party in the monetary amount of the value of the lost provision, and if the parties cannot agree on such value, either party may invoke the dispute resolution provisions of Section 10.17. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 22 Packet Pg. 328 8.3.c 10.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Unless assigned by either parry to a third -party pursuant to the terms of Section 10.1 of this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement, whether expressed or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any person other than the parties to it, nor shall any provision give any third parties any right of subrogation or action against any party to this Agreement. 10.14 Attorneys' Fees. If any legal action or proceeding, including but not limited to arbitration, is brought for the enforcement or for a declaration of rights and duties under this Agreement, or because of an alleged dispute, breach or default in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled In calculating the attorneys' fees payable to a State of Washington agency, such fees shall be computed on the basis of the fees that would reasonably have been incurred had a private law firm been engaged to perform the work. 10.15 Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions of Section 10.1 hereof, this Agreement, and all surviving terms hereof, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns. 10.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Each of the signatories hereto hereby represents and warrants that he or she has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to execute into this Agreement and to bind the entity he or she represents to this Agreement and the obligations hereunder. 10.17 Resolution of Disputes and Venue. 10.17.1 Any dispute under this Agreement shall be referred to nonbinding mediation. Such dispute shall be submitted to a mediator reasonably agreed upon by the parties. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful in resolving any dispute arising under this Agreement, neither party shall thereafter be precluded from filing a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Venue for any such civil action is specifically agreed to be Snohomish County, Washington. 10.17.2 A party claiming a dispute may initiate mediation proceedings by serving the other party with a written request for mediation. The two parties shall then seek to mutually agree upon the mediation process, who shall be the mediator, and any other matter pertinent to mediation. If the parties cannot agree on all such issues within the time they are mutually willing to discuss them, the party claiming the dispute may proceed to file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction as provided in Section 10.17.1. 10.17.3 Each party shall bring to any mediation session, unless excused from doing so by the mediator, a representative from its side with full settlement authority. In addition, each party may bring counsel and such other persons as needed to contribute to a resolution of a claim. 10.17.4 If so requested by a party, the mediator, once familiar with the case, shall give in confidence to the party requesting the information a non -binding recommendation on possible settlement conditions, and/or an opinion on the probable outcome of the case if it were to be resolved by litigation, including its range of value. 10.17.5 The mediation process is to be considered settlement negotiations for the purpose of all state and federal rules protecting disclosures made during such conference from later discovery or use in evidence; provided that any settlement executed by the parties shall not be considered confidential and may be disclosed. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 23 Packet Pg. 329 8.3.c 10.17.5.1 Evidence of anything said, or of any admission made, in the course of the mediation is without prejudice and is not admissible in evidence under Rule 408 of the Rules of Evidence for any purpose, including impeachment, and disclosure of such evidence shall not be compelled in any civil action. 10.17.5.2 No document or copy thereof prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to the mediation shall be admissible in evidence, and disclosure of such document or copy shall not be compelled, in any civil action. 10.17.5.3 No stenographic or other record of the mediation session(s) shall be made except to memorialize a settlement record. 10.17.5.4 All conduct, statements, promises, offers, views, opinions, oral or written, made during the mediation by any party or agent are confidential and, where appropriate, are to be considered work product and privileged Such conduct, statements, promises, offers, views and opinions shall not be subject to discovery and shall not be admissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in any civil action involving the parties. 10.17.5.5 The limitations of this Section 10.17.5 do not affect the discovery or admissibility of facts, opinions,. statements, documents or other evidence existing or developed independent of the mediation proceedings, and the discoverability or admissibility of such evidence is not changed or affected because of its use in the mediation. 10.17.6 The parties may waive any of the confidentiality provisions of Section 10.17.5 through a written waiver or consent to disclosure. 10.17.7 Each of the parties hereto waives the right to trial by jury in any action, suit, proceeding or counterclaim of any kind arising out of or related to this Agreement or any obligation contained herein. 10.18 Confidentialitv. Should any potentially exempt records become the subject of a request for public disclosure, Buyer shall use its best efforts to immediately notify Company of such request and the date by which it anticipates responding, which date shall in no event be less than eight (8) days after Buyer's first notice of the disclosure request to Company. Company must then within eight (8) days of receipt of said notice in writing to Buyer (a) specifically identify each record, or part thereof, and (b) fully explain why such record(s) contain proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(i)(h) or is subject to protection pursuant to Chapter 19.108 RCW or other state law so that Buyer may consider each record and explanation in responding to the requester. If Company fails to specifically identify potentially exempt records or parts thereof, or fails to fully explain why such records are not subject to disclosure within that eight (8) day period, Buyer may make such disclosure. If Company made timely record identification and explanation as to why the records are exempt and Buyer, in its sole discretion, believes Company has a valid claim that the records contain proprietary information, trade secrets, confidential information, or other exempt material, Buyer shall deny the request for disclosure of such records, or excise such information prior to disclosure, or Company, at its sole expense, may seek a judicial declaration of the rights of the parties. If such denial of a request for disclosure of records or excision of information is challenged in court, Company agrees that it will, at its sole expense, defend the non -disclosure of information and shall indemnify Buyer for any and all penalties assessed and costs (including the fees and costs of Buyer's attorneys) that Buyer incurs in such defense including any attorney's fees assessed against Buyer under RCW 42.17.340(4). If prior to, during, or after judicial consideration Buyer in its sole discretion believes Company does not have a valid claim, it shall so notify WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 24 Packet Pg. 330 8.3.c Company not less than three (3) days prior to the date Buyer intends to make the disclosure to allow Company to take such further action as Company deems appropriate prior to disclosure. 10.19 Cooperation. The parties agree to mutually cooperate in fiutherance of the purpose and intent of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts and deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by Company or Buyer, Company and Buyer hereby agree to perform, execute and/or deliver, or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered, at the Close of Escrow any and all such further acts, deeds and assurances as Buyer or Company, as the case may be, may reasonably require to (a) evidence and vest in the Buyer the ownership of and title to the Real Property, and (b) consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder. 10.20 Advice of Counsel. Each party acknowledges that it has received advice of counsel in connection with entering into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WREREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions to be effective as of the date first above written. "Company": UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California c rporation By. ^ , ���-/—t—V WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM "Buyer": STATE OF WASH NGTON DEPART MENT OF SPORTATION By. !/l/ MIKE ANDERSON Its: WSF Acting Director r_ By: 6 ERALD L. GALLINGER Its: Director of Real Estate Services APPROVE AS TO FORM: By: 6i Bryce E. Bro Ae— Senior Co el Office of the Attorney General 25 Packet Pg. 331 8.3.c STATE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this , day of 20j�av`before me personally appeared Mike Anderson, to me known to be the dul appointed WSF Acting Director, and that he executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said State of Washington, for the uses and purposes therein set forth, and on oath states that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day of l 2005: (Sign ►,,,,,,,t'Il�,,,' Zz, _ ,cii�L J 1rnMe'er�i►���i_ (Print or type name) r Notary Public in an for the residing State of Washington VOTARY �' / ,y —�— = My commission expires °F w�aN,��.• WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Packet Pg. 332 8.3.c STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF THURSTON On this of __.L L C!A ,r ZO�before me personally appeazed 6LJAZ56=�,� D% a the d Y y appointe it lf"i, Real Estate Services, and that he executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said State of Washington, for the uses and purposes therein set forth, and on oath states that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN�WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day of Signature) �+v Li Y --I/1 WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM (Print or type name) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at CQ T My commission expires �J— or—; 27 Packet Pg. 333 8.3.c CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF 6qb OLq1U,A�- ) ss COUNTY OF JA AJ 1-U1 s0&SV 0 ) On this �� ' day offjlli'G1/�/Ly 20_a!�'before me personally appeared _s.T F%L E,qn / to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged 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/slwwas authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. ignature) lfli� C. SMIOERS COMMission 115406" I ft" Pubis - Cd xNo < ian Luis Obispo Ccu* �pmv Comm. ion 1' (Print or type name) Notary Public in and for the State of Washbigon residing at a-- / /�S !> My commission expires a&" W/ WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 28 Packet Pg. 334 8.3.c EXHIBrr LIST EXHIBIT A -- Abbreviations and Definitions EXHIBIT B — Property Description EXHIBIT B-1 — Description of Improvements EXHIBIT C — Preliminary Title Report, Exhibit B — Special Exceptions to Title EXHIBIT D — Disclosure and Use Restrictions (Proposed) EXHIBIT E -- Special Warranty Deed EXHIBIT F — Capital Remediation Work EXHIBIT G — Monitoring Work EXHIBIT H — List of Disclosure Documents EXHIBIT I — Description of Adjacent Properties EXHIBIT J -- Marina Beach Agreement WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 29 5 O N c 0 E w 4- 0 r U O 0 Cn 0 c r c m E a� a� L Q U) 06 R c,> L d E c,> a Packet Pg. 335 8.3.c Exhibit A ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS CERCLA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., and any amendments thereto. DOE. Washington State Department of Ecology. MTCA. Washington Model Toxic Control Act, Chapter 70.105D RCW, and any amendments thereto. RCRA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., and any amendments thereto. DEFINITIONS ADDITIONAL EARNEST MONEY. The term "Additional Earnest Money" shall mean the disbursement from Escrow by Escrow Holder to Company in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) One Million Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,500,000.00) or (ii) the amount remaining when there is subtracted from Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($8,175,000.00) the sum of the Initial Earnest Money plus the O&M Payment, plus one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Remediation Bid Price. ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The term "Adjacent Properties" shall mean those properties legally described on Exhibit I of the Agreement. AGENCY. The term "Agency" shall mean any federal, state or local government authority, excluding Buyer, actually asserting jurisdiction over conditions of Contamination on the Property. AGREEMENT. The term "Agreement" shall mean this Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions and all exhibits and amendments thereto. APPLICABLE CONTAMINATION. The term "Applicable Contamination" shall mean Contamination of the Adjacent Properties caused by Company during its ownership of the Adjacent Properties from use of the Adjacent Properties as a facility for the storage and handling of fuel hydrocarbons. APPROVED REMEDIATION PLAN. The term "Approved Remediation Plan" shall mean the DOE approved clean up action plan for the Property which shall include the Capital Remediation Work and the Monitoring Work. ASSUMED CLAIMS. The term "Assumed Claims" shall mean any and all claims, liability, damages, demands, costs, expenses, and causes of action of all kinds, including but not limited to claims of the death, illness, or injury of any person or persons, including but not limited to members of Buyer Group, and/or from damage to or loss or destruction of any property (real or personal) arising out of or in connection with (i) the performance or non-performance of any action or obligation under this Agreement Exhibit A WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 30 Packet Pg. 336 8.3.c by Buyer Group; or (ii) the possession or use of or operation on, under or within the Property or the holding of any interest in the Property or any condition existing or occurring on, under or within the Property after Close of Escrow, including but not limited to matters relating to any Contamination existing on, under or within, or emanating from the Property. BALANCE OF PURCHASE PRICE. The term `Balance of Purchase Price" shall mean the Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8,175,000.00) less the amount of the Initial Earnest Money, Buyer is required to deposit in to Escrow within thirty (30) days after full execution of the Agreement. BUYER. The term `Buyer" shall mean the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington. BUYER GROUP. The term `Buyer Group" shall mean, individually and collectively, the Buyer and its affiliated or successor entities, their officers, directors, agents, employees, or by any contractor or subcontractor employed by Buyer, or by the agents, or employees of any such contractor or subcontractor. CAPITAL REMEDIATION WORK. The term "Capital Remediation Work" shall mean remediation activities required under the Approved Remediation Plan, which work includes the capital work for design and construction of the remedy, including soil excavation and treatment, construction of groundwater treatment system, and establishment of a groundwater monitoring network, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit F to the Agreement. CLOSE OF ESCROW. The term "Close of Escrow" shall mean the performance by the Escrow Holder of the acts necessary to close the Escrow as set forth in Section 5.7 of the Agreement. CLOSING DATE. The term "Closing Date" shall mean the date thirty (30) days after Company obtains written confirmation from DOE that Company has performed the Capital Remediation Work to the extent that the Monitoring Work may commence, unless such date is extended pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. COMPANY. The term "Company" shall mean the Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation. COMPANY GROUP. The term "Company Group" shall mean, individually and collectively, the Company and its affiliated or successor entities, their officers, directors, agents, employees, tenants, or lessees or by any contractor or subcontractor employed by Company, or by the agents or employees of any such tenant, lessee, contractor or subcontractor. CONTAMINATION. The term "Contamination" shall mean any hazardous or toxic material, substance, chemical or waste, contaminant, emission, discharge or pollutant or comparable material listed, identified or regulated pursuant to any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation which has as a purpose the protection of health, safety or the environment, including but not limited to, asbestos, petroleum or petroleum products, methane or natural gas or wastes derived therefrom and including hazardous materials as defined under the federal CERCI A; Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.; RCRA; the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the Washington Environmental Policy Act, RCW Ch. 43.21, the Washington Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.010 et seq., the Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act, RCW Ch. 70.105, MTCA, RCW Ch. 70.105D, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Exhibit A WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 31 Packet Pg. 337 8.3.c DEED. The term "Deed" shall mean the Special Warranty Deed by which the Property will be conveyed from Company to Buyer and which is attached to the Agreement as Exhibit E. DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS. The term "Disclosure Documents" shall mean the documents Company is required to provide Buyer as provided in Section 7.1 of the Agreement, a partial list of which are listed in Exhibit H of the Agreement. ENHANCED REMEDIATION COMPENSATION. The term "Enhanced Remediation Compensation" shall mean that element of liquidated damages, as provided in Section 6.13.2 of the Agreement, Company is entitled to in the event Company terminates the Agreement for a Buyer default after Company has submitted the Revised Feasibility Study to DOE. ESCROW. The term "Escrow" shall mean the escrow account opened by Company with Chicago Title Insurance Company, as provided in Section 5 of the Agreement. ESCROW HOLDER. The term "Escrow Holder" shall mean the Chicago Title Insurance Company, 3030 Hoyt Avenue, Everett, WA 98201. EXISTING REM[EDIATION OBLIGATIONS. The term "Existing Remediation Obligations" shall mean certain remediation activities on the Property Company is presently performing pursuant to Agreed Order DE 92TC-N328 between Company and DOE" executed on October 25, 1993. FIItPTA CERTIFICATE. The term "FIRPTA Certificate" shall mean a certificate by Company's authorized officer to the effect that, as of the date of the Close of Escrow, it is not a foreign person as defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Income Tax Regulations. The FIRPTA Certificate is substantially in the form described in Treasury Regulation Section 1.1446- 2(b)(2)(iii)(B), or otherwise within the requirements of Section 1. 1 445-2(b)(2) of that regulation and any comparable state or local laws. EMPROVEMENTS. The term "Improvements" shall mean all improvements, buildings and fixtures currently located on the Real Property, with the exception of the existing pedestrian trestle, which shall be removed by Company prior to the Close of Escrow, all apparatus, equipment and appliances used in connection with the ownership, use and operation of the Real Property such as facilities used to provide any utility services, all of which are described on Exhibit B-1 to the Agreement. INITIAL EARNEST MONEY. The term "Initial Earnest Money" shall mean the One Hundred Thousand and no/l00 Dollars ($100,000.00) Buyer is required to deposit in the Escrow Account within five (5) business days after Escrow is opened. MIGRATED CONTAMINATION. The term "Migrated Contamination" shall mean Applicable Contamination on or within the Property, which Buyer proves has migrated onto the Property from the Adjacent Properties after Close of Escrow without cause or exacerbation by Buyer. MIGRATED CONTAMINATION ACTIVITIES. The term "Migrated Contamination Activities" shall mean Company's investigation of any claim of Migrated Contamination, and taking any necessary, appropriate, or desirable response actions to actual or alleged Migrated Contamination, including, without limitation, excavation, sampling, or installing, operating, maintaining or removing any monitoring or remedial equipment, devices or systems. MONITORING WORK. The term "Monitoring Work" shall mean the remediation activities required under the Approved Remediation Plan for subsequent operation of the groundwater treatment Exhibit A WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 32 Packet Pg. 338 8.3.c system and performance of compliance monitoring, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit G to the Agreement. O&M PAYMENT. The term "O&M Payment" shall mean the payment to Buyer from Company to fund the Buyer's Monitoring Work on the Real Property. The O&M Payment shall be in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($872,500.00). PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND. The term "Payment and Performance Bond" shall mean the bond obtained in accordance with Section 6.8.2 by Company, or its contractor that will perform the Capital Remediation Work, in the amount equal to or more than Remediation Bid Price. PENDING LAWSUIT. The term "Pending Lawsuit" shall mean the pending lawsuit against Company by Harbor Square Associates, LLC and the Port of Edmonds filed under Snohomish County Cause No. 03-2-12545-6 alleging that property adjacent to the Property was contaminated by Company. PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS. The term "Permitted Exceptions" shall mean the exceptions to title of the Property that Buyer has approved to accept. PRELEIOINARY TITLE REPORT. The term "Preliminary Title Report" shall mean the Preliminary Title Report No. 366420 issued by Chicago Title Company on September 3, 2004 as supplemented on September 14, 2004 by Supplemental No. 1 for an Owners extended title policy prepared by Chicago Title Company. PROGRESS REPORTS. The term "Progress Reports" shall mean the reports Company is required to submit to DOE on the activities under the Approved Remediation Plan. PROPERTY. The term "Property" shall mean the Real Property and Improvements collectively. PROPOSED REM EDIATION PLAN. The term Remediation Plan shall mean the plan for the Capital Remediation Work and Monitoring Work proposed by Company and submitted to DOE for approval. PUBLIC AGENCY. The term Public Agency shall mean any agency of the United States; any agency of the State of Washington; cities formed under Chapter 35.22 RCW and Chapter 35.23 RCW; towns formed under Chapter 35.27; counties formed under Chapter 36 RCW; port districts formed under Chapter 53 RCW; and regional transit authorities formed under Chapter 81.112 RCW. PURCHASE PRICE. The term "Purchase Price" shall mean the total purchase price to be paid by Buyer to Company for the Property, which is Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($8,175,000.00). REAL PROPERTY. The term "Real Property" shall mean that certain real property located in Snohomish County, Washington, and more particularly described on Exhibit B to the Agreement together with all rights, privileges and easements appurtenant to the real property, including, but without limitation, all minerals, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances on and under the real property, all development rights, air rights, water, water rights and any and all easements, rights -of -way and other appurtenances used in connection with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the real property. RELEASED CLAIMS. The term "Released Claims" shall mean, individually and collectively, all claims, liability, damages, demands, costs, expenses, and causes of action of all kinds (including but not limited to claims for contribution under statute or common law), arising out of or in connection with Exhibit A WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 33 Packet Pg. 339 8.3.c the existence, assessment, monitoring or remediation of Contamination upon, under, in, or emanating from the soils, sediments, groundwater, bodies of water, surface waters, or Improvements of the Property, including without limitation any claims for death, bodily injury, illness, or property damage or for any claims for any special, indirect, or consequential damages (including but not limited to claims for loss of use, rents, anticipated profit or business opportunity, or business interruption, diminution in value, natural resources damages, or mental or emotional distress or fear of injury or illness), trespass, nuisance or otherwise, for any response costs it may incur with respect to the Property, under any existing or future federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, legal cause of action or theory of any kind, including but not limited to any claim under CERCLA, RCRA, MTCA, or similar or comparable state, federal, or local laws. REMEDIATION BID PRICE. The term "Remediation Bid Price" shall mean the price for the Capital Remediation Work resulting from the Company's negotiations or bid of such work as set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan. REMEDIATION DISBURSEMENTS. The term "Remediation Disbursements" shall mean payments from Escrow by Escrow Holder to Company, as provided in Section 3.3.2.2.3, for Capital Remediation Work performed by Company or third parties it employs to perform the Capital Remediation Work. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. The term "Restrictive Covenants" shall mean the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which terms and conditions conform to DOE's requirements, as applicable, and which has been executed and acknowledged by both parties. REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY. The term "Revised Feasibility Study shall mean the document that sets forth the clean up plan for the Property that contains the Proposed Remediation Plan as the preferred alternative. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. The term "Schedule of Performance" shall mean the schedule for milestone dates for the completion for Capital Remediation Work as set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan. TITLE COMPANY. The term "Title Company" shall mean the Chicago Title Company. TITLE POLICY. The term "Title Policy" shall mean the standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance as further described in Section 4.2.2 of the Agreement. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. The term "Third Party Claims" shall mean claims made by a person who is not a government entity or who is not a member of the Buyer Group which claim Buyer proves is the result of Migrated Contamination which has not been exacerbated by the acts of any member of the Buyer Group. Exhibit A WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 34 Packet Pg. 340 8.3.c Exhibit B EXHIBIT A of Special warranty Deed (Legal Description) LOT 2, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216TH STREET SW); THENCE NORTH 01 008'l4" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 211.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52039'09" WEST 909.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 59001'l7" EAST 262.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89036'15" EAST 359.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 78034'50" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216TH STREET SW); THENCE NORTH 01008' 14" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 211.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52039'09" WEST 909.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTH 4203434" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 59001'17" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 59001'17" EAST 566.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.200202145001, AND CORRECTED BY AUDITOR'S FILE NO.200204291076). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit B 35 Packet Pg. 341 8.3.c Exhibit B-1 DESCRIPTION OF E"ROVEMENTS The remaining trestle; three storm water handling pumps; and miscellaneous fencing. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit B-1 36 Packet Pg. 342 8.3.c E_ PRELDIHNARY TITLE REPORT, EXIIIBIT B — SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE •. EASEMENT CONDEMNED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: IN FAVOR OF: THE STATE OF WASHINGTON PURPOSE: TO USE AND OCCUPY THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING DRAINAGE FACILITIES AREA AFFECTED: 20 FOOT STRIP, EAST TO WEST THROUGH SAID PREMISES CAUSE NUMBER: 106375 •. CONDEMNATION OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER SR 104 AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY DECREE TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 2, 1971 SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER: 106375 •. EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE A 72 INCH STORM SEWER OUTFLOW THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED THEREIN IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE ITS EXACT LOCATION WITHIN THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED. AUGUST 4, 1978 7808040307 •. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM CITY OF EDMONDS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A WATER MAIN PORTION OF LOT 3 NOVEMBER 19, 1979 7911190250 Exhibit C 37 Packet Pg. 343 8.3.c •. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: REGARDING: UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A CORPORATION CITY OF EDMONDS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FEBRUARY 21, 1980 8002210208 AND 8003060145 CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT •. CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED ON CITY OF EDMONDS RECORD OF SHORT SUBDIVISION RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 8101160175. SAID SHORT PLAT ALSO CONTAINS A HOLD HARMLESS AND WAIVER AND RELEASE OF DAMAGES PROVISION. •. RIGHT TO MAKE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS OR FILLS UPON PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED AS GRANTED IN DEED: GRANTEE: CITY OF EDMONDS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED: JANUARY 16, 1981 RECORDING NUMBER: 8101160176 •. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CITY OF EDMONDS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A DRAINAGE SYSTEM AREA AFFECTED: A 35 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 AND INCLUDES OTHER PROPERTY RECORDED: DECEM 3ER 23, 1981 RECORDING NUMBER: 8112230188 CLARIFICATION OF OBLIGATIONS AND CONCURRENCE IN CLARIFICATION OF OBLIGATIONS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBERS 200402240203 AND 200404120147, RESPECTIVELY. •. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, DEDICATIONS, AGREEMENTS, EASEMENTS, MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS AND NOTES, AS CONTAINED IN CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NUMBER S-98-018, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9810055004. •. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.9810055004, AS FOLLOWS: WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit C 38 Packet Pg. 344 8.3.c DUE TO THE UNCERTAIN NATURE OF EVENTUAL RE -DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, ROADS AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WILL BE SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR SAID RE -DEVELOPMENT. •. EASEMENT AS DELINEATED AND/OR DEDICATED ON THE FACE OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.9810055004. PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: DRAINAGE AND SANITARY SEWER PORTION OF LOT 2 FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 3 •. AFFIDAVIT OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: APRIL 12, 2001 FEBRUARY 14, 2002 200202145001 NOTICE OF CORRECTION OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED APRIL 29, 2002, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200204291076. •. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: REGARDING: UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION CITY OF EDMONDS DECEMBER 20, 2001 200112200727 UTILITY, MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENTS •. ORDINANCE NO.3411 AND THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: AUGUST 1, 2002 200208010252 •. ORDINANCE NO.3442 AND THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN RECORDED: APRIL 16, 2003 RECORDING NUMBER: 200304160292 WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit C 39 Packet Pg. 345 8.3.c Exhibit D DISCLOSURE AND USE RESTRICTIONS (PROPOSED) A. The Owner shall prohibit activities on the Property that may interfere with the Capital Remediation Work, the operation, maintenance, monitoring and other measures necessary to assure the integrity of such work, and the continued protection of human health and the environment. B. The Owner must give thirty (30) days advance written notice to Ecology of the Owner's intent to convey any interest in the Property. The Owner shall not consummate any conveyance of title, easement, lease or other interest in the Property without adequate and complete provision for continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the cleanup action, and for continued compliance with the Restrictive Covenant. The Owner conveying any interest in the Property shall notify Ecology of the name, mailing address and telephone number of the person or persons who acquired the title, easement, lease, or other interest in the Property within fifteen (15) days of the transaction. The Owner shall include notice of the Restrictive Covenant in any instrument conveying any interest in any portion of the Property. C. The Owner shall restrict leases, easements, and other interests in the Property to uses and activities consistent with the Restrictive Covenant and all applicable laws and regulations. The Owner shall notify all lessees, easement holders and holders of other interests in the Property of the restrictions on the use of the Property. D. The Owner shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations respecting any Contamination at, on, under, within or about the Property, including without limitation any such laws or regulations affecting or pertaining to additional remediation required on the Property and/or the use of the Property on account of the presence or potential presence of Contamination. E. The Owner must notify and obtain approval from Ecology prior to any use of the Property that is inconsistent with the terms of the Restrictive Covenant. Ecology may approve any inconsistent use only after public notice and comment. Approval by Ecology pursuant to this section shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Restrictive Covenant shall be amended to reflect any changes approved by Ecology. F. The Owner shall allow authorized representatives of Ecology the right to enter the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of evaluating the remedial action, to take samples, to inspect remedial actions conducted at the Property, and to inspect records that are related to the remedial action. G. Residential use is prohibited on the ground floor of any building. H. Day care, child care, and nursing home facilities are prohibited on the ground floor of any building. I. No groundwater may be taken for any use from the Property that is inconsistent with the remedial action implementation. J. The Owner reserves the right under WAC 173-340-440 to record an instrument that provides that this Restrictive Covenant shall no longer limit use of the Property or be of any future force or effect. However, for all restrictions other than those in Paragraphs G and H above, such an instrument may be recorded only if Ecology, after public notice and opportunity for comment, concurs. For the restrictions in Paragraphs G and H, such an instrument may be recorded only if both Unocal and Ecology, and after public notice and opportunity for comment, concur. Exhibit D WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 40 Packet Pg. 346 8.3.c Exhibit E SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED When Recorded Return to: Karen Bruton Union Oil Company of California 376 Valencia Avenue Brea, CA 92823 (Space above this line for recorder's use only) DOCUMENT TITLE: Special warranty Deed REFERENCE NUMBER(S) OF RELATED DOCUMENTS: N/A Additional reference numbers on page(s) N/A of document. GRANTOR: Union Oil Company of California GRANTEE: State of Washington Department of Transportation ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Additional legal on page 5 of document. ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NO(S). 262703-2-003-0009 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation ("GRANTOR"), for and in consideration of TEN AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, conveys and conforms to Washington State Department of Transportation ("GRANTEE"), under the imminent threat of the GRANTEE'S exercise of its rights of Eminent Domain, the real estate legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington (the "Property"); AND EXCEPTING those matters listed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTOR for itself and for its successors and assigns does by these presents expressly limit the covenants of this Deed to those herein expressed, and excludes all covenants arising or to arise by statutory or other implication, and does hereby covenant that against all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim by, through or under said GRANTOR and not otherwise, it will forever warrant and defend the said described real estate. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit E 41 Packet Pg. 347 8.3.c Dated: , 2005. GRANTOR: UNION OIL OF COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation Its: WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM GRANTEE: STATE OF WASTE NGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Its: [Attach appropriate acknowledgements] Exhibit E 42 Packet Pg. 348 8.3.c EXHIBIT A of Special warranty Deed (Legal Description) LOT 2, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE DF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216TH STREET SW); THENCE NORTH 01008'14" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 211.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52039'09" WEST 909.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 59001'17" EAST 262.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89036'15" EAST 359.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 78034'50" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216TH STREET SW); THENCE NORTH 01008'14" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 211.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52039'09" WEST 909.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 78034'50" WEST 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTH 42034'34" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 59001'17" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 5900I'l7" EAST 566.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.200202145001, AND CORRECTED BY AUDITOR'S FILE NO.200204291076). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit E 43 Packet Pg. 349 8.3.c EDIT B of Special warranty Deed (Exceptions) 1, Any and all existing building and use restrictions, easements, rights -of -way, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations, liens, encumbrances, exceptions and other matters of record; 2. All dedicated roads, streets and highways; 3. All building and zoning ordinances, laws, regulations and restrictions by any municipal or other governmental authority applicable to the Property; 4. All general and special taxes and assessments which are alien but not yet due or payable or for which statements have not yet been tendered; 5. All matters apparent from an inspection of the Property, or which a current, accurate survey of the Property would disclose (including but not limited to encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, ownership of the trestle for pedestrian access, utilities and pipes and issues relating to obtaining or maintaining access to the Property); 6. Any and all Native American rights which may exist with respect to any portion of the Property; 7. Any and all water, oil, gas, hydrocarbon and mineral rights; 8. Any fishing rights; and 9. The Restrictive Covenants filed contemporaneously herewith. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit E 44 Packet Pg. 350 8.3.c Exhibit F CAPITAL REMEDIATION PLAN The Capital Remediation Plan is the capital portion of work approved by Ecology as written in the Approved Remediation Plan, including planning, permitting and execution of soil, sediment and groundwater cleanup as specified in the Approved Remediation Plan. The capital elements of the remedial action in the Lower Yard parcel include all labor, materials, and equipment required to remove and/or treat free product and soil (at depths above the groundwater table) containing total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations greater than a cleanup level of 2,975 mg/kg. All labor, materials, and equipment to install and start up a system designed to treat impacted groundwater above Ecology -approved cleanup levels in a reasonable timeframe (within 20 years) are also considered capital elements of the remedial action. The description of capital elements of the remedial action provided here does not in any way limit Unocal's responsibility to meet Ecology's requirements for the capital elements of the remedial action. Capital elements associated with soil remediation include, but are not necessarily limited to: • removal and recycling of remaining free product, • removal and treatment of the upper 1 ft of sediment from approximately 200 linear feet of the Willow Creek streambed (see draft Feasibility Study), • replacement of the excavated Willow Creek sediment with sandy loam and necessary bank restoration activities for erosion control and habitat restoration, • excavation of soil, at depths above the groundwater table, that contains TPH concentrations greater than the 2,975 mg/kg cleanup level, • on -site or off -site treatment or off -site disposal of excavated soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg TPH in such a way that the impacted soil will be treated/disposed and the site restored to development -ready conditions within one year of commencing the remedial action, • verification that the extent of contamination does not leave soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg by collecting and analyzing excavation bottom (unless groundwater is present in excavation) and sidewall soil samples, • management of clean overburden soil to prevent cross -contamination by soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg TPH, • removal and disposal of soil containing arsenic concentrations greater than 20 mg/kg, • backfill of excavated areas with appropriate soil types in order to achieve 90% relative compaction, • replacement of any groundwater monitoring wells abandoned or damaged during soil excavation activities and installation of any additional wells that Ecology would require for use in a groundwater monitoring network, and • sufficient documentation and interaction with Ecology to lead to a determination by Ecology that the soil remediation meets Ecology's requirements. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit F 45 Packet Pg. 351 8.3.c Capital elements associated with installation and start up of the groundwater remediation system include, but are not necessarily limited to: • construction of a trench intercept system to recover contaminated groundwater such that groundwater with chemical concentrations exceeding Ecology -approved cleanup levels does not leave the Lower Yard parcel, • design of an onsite groundwater treatment system to meet Ecology -approved discharge standards, • coordination with Washington State Ferries ("WSF') to confirm that the location of the groundwater treatment system will not interfere with development plans, • startup monitoring of that system to confirm that its operation meets the design objectives, and • sufficient documentation and interaction with Ecology to lead to a determination by Ecology that the constructed system is appropriate for containing and treating contaminated groundwater associated with the Lower Yard parcel. The parties agree that in the pursuit of achieving performance -based remediation criteria including those set forth herein, the practicability of achieving these criteria may be limited to some degree by conditions encountered during field activities. As a hypothetical example, if subsurface soil impacts extend beneath a permanent building, such soil may be left in place if its excavation would compromise the structural integrity of the building. If achievement of the remediation criteria is determined by Unocal and Ecology to be impracticable based on actual field conditions, WSF agrees that Unocal may obtain approval from Ecology on a suitable alternative approach to meet the goals of the remedial action. WSF agrees that if remediation criteria will not be met as set forth herein, Unocal will communicate the recommended alternative approach to the Washington State Department of Transportation through the Washington State Ferries in a timely fashion. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit F 46 Packet Pg. 352 8.3.c Exhibit G MONITORING WORK The Monitoring Work consists of the monitoring portion of work approved by Ecology as written in the Approved Remediation Plan, including operation and maintenance of the groundwater recovery and treatment system and compliance groundwater monitoring as specified in the Approved Remediation Plan and a compliance monitoring plan to be developed with Ecology. The principal elements of Monitoring Work include: • removal and recycling of any recoverable free product, if necessary • pumping, treatment and discharge of groundwater as necessary to maintain sufficient hydrologic capture under an approved groundwater discharge permit • optimizing operation of the groundwater recovery and treatment system on a regular basis • maintaining the groundwater recovery and treatment system including replacement of parts and equipment, as necessary • collecting and analyzing compliance groundwater samples in accordance with the methods and schedule described in the compliance monitoring plan • sufficient documentation and interaction with Ecology to lead to a determination by Ecology that the operation and maintenance of the groundwater recovery and treatment system and compliance groundwater monitoring meets Ecology's requirements. WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit G 47 Packet Pg. 353 8.3.c Exhibit H DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS REPORTS - EDMONDS TERMINAL GeoEngineers 1986. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for UNOCAL Corporation. December 4. GeoEngineers 1987. Progress Report No. 1, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. August 31. GeoEngineers 1988a. Progress Report No. 2, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. October 10. GeoEngineers 1988b. Report of Geotechnical Services, Subsurface Contamination Study, Upland Fuel Tank Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1988c. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989a. Progress Report No. 3, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. September 19. GeoEngineers 1989b. Technical Report, Phase H Site Assessment, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989c. Report of Geotechnical Services, Site Contamination Assessment, Waste Soil Stockpile Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1990 Results of Site Characterization, Marine Diesel Spill, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1991 a. Progress Report No. 4, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. April 19. GeoEngineers 1991b. Site Contamination Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1993 Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad Properties, Edmonds, Washington EMCON 1994a. Free Petroleum Product Recovery System Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 20. Exhibit H WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 48 Packet Pg. 354 8.3.c EMCON 1994b. Background History Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 15. EMCON 1995a. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 26. EMCON 1995b. Final Upland Sediments Evaluation Work Plan. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 1. EMCON 1995c. Addendum, Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, April 26, 1995. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 31. EMCON 1995d. Existing Monitoring Well Assessment and Proposed Monitoring Well Network, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. September 21. EMCON 1996a. Interim Deliverable, Drainage System Inventory Results, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 8. EMCON 1996b. 1995 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 29. EMCON 1996c. Final Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 12. EMCON 1996d. Preliminary Upper Yard Hydrogeology Evaluation, Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 6. EMCON 1996e. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal RI/FS, Combustible Gas Monitoring and Evaluation. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 25. EMCON 1996f. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 23. EMCON 1997a. 1996 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 27. EMCON 1997b. Revised RI Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. October, as amended March 26, 1998. EMCON 1998a. 1997 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. March 24. EMCON. 1998e. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation Asset Management Group. October 19. Exhibit H WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 49 Packet Pg. 355 8.3.c EMCON 1999. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, August 1998 and February 1999 Groundwater Data. May 13. Maul Foster & Alongi 1999. 1998 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 1. Maul Foster & Alongi 2000a. 1999 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. January 31. Maul Foster & Alongi 2000c. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, February 2000 Groundwater Data. July 25. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001 a. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. February 2. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001b. 2000 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 6. Documents concerning Marina Beach, Tidelands and Neighboring Properties: Landau Associates, 1998. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigations, South Marina, Port of Edmonds, Washington. April 8. Maul Foster & Alongi 2000b. Sediment Sampling Results, Unocal Pier Area. May 16. CH2Mhill, 2000a. Results of the Upland and Sediment Investigations. Letter to Bill Joyce, November 7. CH2Mhill, 2000b. Final Report — City of Edmonds, Sediment Investigation. Letter to Lisa Saban (CH2Mhill) December 29. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2001. City of Edmonds Sediment Investigation. Letter to Lisa Saban (CH2Mhill) January 24. Exhibit H WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 50 Packet Pg. 356 8.3.c Snohomish County Health District, 2001. Site Hazard Assessment — Port of Edmonds, 400 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington. January 19. General Arrangement Drawing No. L2A151 dated 3/16/82 for Wharf Preliminary Title Report from Chicago Title Insurance Company, Order No. 365685 Agreement with Great Northern Railway Company dated June 1, 1923 Department of Natural Resources Harbor Lease No. 22-002684 WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM Exhibit H 51 Packet Pg. 357 8.3.c Exhibit I ADJACENT PROPERTIES LEGAL DESCRIPTION Upper Yazd Marsh Properly Hatchery Property WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM See Attached Exhibit I 5 O N C O E W 4- 0 r-+ U H O 0 Cn O c r c m E a� a� L Q U) Ca Cu U L d E 0 a 52 Packet Pg. 358 8.3.c EXHIBIT ,k ,PARCEL A: LOT 3, CITY OF 30DM0lgDS SHORT PLAT (S-9 8-018) -RECORD1tD UNDER AUDITOR'S FILM NUMBER 9010055004 BEING.A PORTIOR OF GOVERNMENT.LOT 3 IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF TEX NORTHWEST QUART= OF TE3 NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 6 , ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGN. 3 BAST I W .X. , RZCOP.DS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASEINGT w'. EXCEPT TEAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY .OF ED16ONDS SHORT PLAT (5-98-018) DLSCRZ311D AS POLLOWS : COMMEENCING AT THE INTERJECTION Of THE .BAST LINE OF SAID LOT. 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-95-019.),AND PINE 8TRENT EXTENSION (216T+B STREET SW)F THENCE NORTH 01'08'01" EMT ALONG SAq EASTERLY LINE 211.56 FEET, THENCE NORTH 52'39109" WEBT 909.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75053'15" WEST 410.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78'34'50" W'bST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUS POINT OF BEGMMING; THENCE SOUTH 78'34'50" WEST 272.90 FEET TO TIM EASTERLY MARGn OF TEE SURLZNGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTH 42'34'34' WEST ALONG SAID MARGrN A DIBTANCE OF 322.72 P3MW .TO A POINT WHICR HEARS SOUTH 59'D1'17' WEST FROM THE TRUE POIN? OF BEGINHINaF THENCE NORTH 59'D1'17" EABT 566.66.FEET TO TIM TRUE P033lT OF BEGINNING= TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT FLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMSNCING AT THB INTERSECTION OF 'gEE BAST LINE OF LOT 3 OITY OF EDIlONDS BHOR'P PLAT (S-96-01E) AND PINE STREET 2XT8N9ION (226TE SMIET SW) F THENCE NORTH 01'08+01' LAST ALONG SAID $AST LIME 211.56 FEET] THENCE NORTH 52'39109' WEST 909.0E FEET; THENCE BOUTS 75'531190 WEST 420.77 FEET; THENCE' SOUTH 79034150R WEST 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE P03VT OF BEGINNING; ..s THFNCR NORTH 59*01-17" EAST 262.97 FEET;• THENCE NORTH 89' 36' 15" EAST 359..47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY =RNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 75053115" WEST 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTE 78034'SDI' EAST FROM 'THE TRUE $DINT dF Bzc;m rmc;,. . THENCE SOUTH 7B'34150" WEST 190_31 PUT TO TED TRUE•PdINT OF SZOM NINCy ALSO RNOWN AS PARCEL 3 OF CITY DIP EDMONDS BOUNDARY LTRB ADJUSTMEN?'RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S PME NUMBER 290202145DD1, AND CORRECTION THERETO RBCDRDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200204291076, RECOgDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTYr WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: TEAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,.SECTION 26 AND THE IIDRTHWEST QUARTER DF THE . NORTSEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTE, RANGE 3.EA.ST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTOW, A85CRMZ6 A8 FOLLOWS: Upper Yard Property Exhibit I O N C O W O r U O 0 Cn v O c c d E a� Q m U) Ca d N Cu t C> L d c d E t V R a Packet Pg. 359 8.3.c HEGMMG AT A CONCRETE MONO2WXT AT THE SOMN ST COR14P.R QF TBE NORTMMST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 'Z6; THENCE NORTH 88'51146" WEBT ALONG THE SOUTH. LINE or MO GOVERNMENT LOT 1,• A DISTANCE OF 527.86 FEAT; . THENCE NORTH 2:035100" W89T 130.47 FEET TO TIM POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT RAVING A RADIUS OF 80.CO F10ET; TRINCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAM CURVE $6.57 FEET TO A Pow OF A COMPOUND CURVE HAVING A RADIUS or 165.00 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 113.10 FEET TO TEE POINT Of TANGSUCY; THESC8 SOUTH 65"35100" EAST 37.99L FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT BASING A RADIUS OF 480.OD FEET; THENCPJ SOUTHEASTERLY ALOWM SAID CURVE 19.31 ftXT TO THE POINT OF TBBGEWCY; TZMNCE SOUTH 54'51'46" EAST 207.7D FEET TO THM POINT OF CORVATURE OF A CURVE. TO THE LSFT-BAVING A RAbIU9 OF 520.00 FNETI' THENCE BOUTHEASTERLY ALONG' SAID CURVE 187.64 FEET TO A POINT ON TER SOUTH LINE OP SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER. OF TER WORTHEAST QUARTER, SAID POINT BM=G SOUTH 88851'46' EAST 83.1E FmT FROIt THE POINT or maiNNING; THENCE NORTH 38*51,46" WEST ALONG SAMD SOUTH LINE 83.1E FEET TO TH8 PD=NT OF BEGIN2TING . . (SBI19 PARCEL III OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 8101180175). S=TUATB IN THE COUNTY OF SNOBOMISH, STATE 0F.WA8HINGTON. Upper Yard Property Exhibit I 5 O N c O E W 4- 0 U H O 0 Cn O C .r C d E d O L a U) Ca Cu m C.) L d E m 0 a Packet Pg. 360 8.3.c Dec-13-2004 00:012m From -UNOCAL ARCEL IV: 7146772969 T-601 P.002/003 F-911 u HAT PORTION OF COVERNMENT LOT 3. SECTION 23 AND THAT PORTION OF TH9 ORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANCE 3 EAST, .M.. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. OESCRI8EM AS FOLLOWS: G�IM,*ICIN� AT A CONCRE71 MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH ISE OF SAID SECTION 26, WITH THE 9ASTEPLY MARCIN OF THE BURLINGTON NOR- HERN RAILWAY RICHT-OF-WAY AND FROM WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A!0 SECTION 26 BEARS SOUTH IVSS'41' EAST: THENCE NORTH 42014134" EAST LONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 327.47 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 'XENCE SOUTH 47•30'000 EAST 716.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42030100" WEST 93.00 FEET: THENC: SOUTH 43'70170' EAST 449.:0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44'30'9;" AST 400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64111145" EAST 243.IIS FEE- TO THE WESTERLY iARCIN OF SR 104 AS CONDE.-ANED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR STATE MAD 104 BY DEC1!ES ENTZRED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUFSRIOR COURT CAUSE ;0. 10637.; THENCE NORTH 12°sr1S" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 53.00 FEET: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN NORTH 1'06'54" AST 1015.00 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 73'00'00° WEST 240.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH '010,001, WEST 110.00 FEET; THEmcs NORTH 66900'00- WEST 140.00 FEET; THENCE FORTH 400001000 WEST 12S.00 FEE"; THENC= 14CRTH 1600100" WEST 200.00 FEET; 'HENCS NORTH 37000'00" WEST 263.00 FEE`: THENCE SOUTH 71000'Oo- WEST 01.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINCTON IORTHERN RAILWAY RICHT-OF-WAY. SAID POINT SE1NG NORTH 42634430 EAST C3.90 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BES lNN:NC: THENCE SOUTH 42934134'" LEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 28E.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF IEGINNINC. 'f n. Marsh Property 760S7C S131173 (REV.) Exhibit I Glyx 8003060145 v0L166jp cEib57 r Packet Pg. 361 8.3.c LOT 1, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WISHINGTON. • SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Hatchery property Exhibit I Packet Pg. 362 8.3.c Exhibit J MARINA BEACH PROPERTY AGREEMENT See Attached Exhibit J WSDOT 1/18/2005 4:12 PM 53 Packet Pg. 363 8.3.c sraWaded b►and where recorded tail to UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFOR IA 376 South Valens Avenue Brea, Cahforima 92823 gkiUME11IM111 112200730 ?01R0IIPM Snohomish Aun AM= Bruton 1 r4, (Space above this line for recorder's use only) CH►CAGO 365-CS,j DOCUDONT TITLE: Agreement and Declarabon of Covenants, Condo ws, Environmental and Use Restrictions, Waiver and Release REFERENCE NUMEER(S) OF RELATED DOCUMENTS: N/A Additional reference numbers on page(s) NIA of document GRANTOR: Union Oil Company of California GRANTEE: City of Edmonds ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: — 2 ,r Addtwnal legal on page 9 of document ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NO(V662703-2-003.0009 AGREEMENT MID DECLARATION OF COVI6; "NTT, CONDITIONS, INVIRONMENTAL AND USE RESTRICTIONS, WAVER AND RELEASE Thu Agreement and Declaration of Cove nan1% Conditions, Envnumnenlal w d Use Reat<ienons, Waiver and Release (this is msdc as of .igc t MA I it 17 e?oo /, by Union Oil Company of Caldbraia, a California corporation ("UMW") and City of Edmionib, i Washington municipal corporation RECITALS: A Owner and Unocal entered into the Sale Agreement, ptasriant to which (i) Owner acgwed utle to the Property, and (u) Owner accepted an assignment of the DNR I ease B Pursuant to the provisions of the Sale Agreeme M Owner and Unocal agreed to Meoord this Agreement: concurrently vinth the recordimg of the Seed conveying title to the Property to Owner EZfF �i"I ?--;,r-XD:� Marina Beach Prop. Agent Exhibit J Packet Pg. 364 8.3.c C It ns the mutual dewe and intention of Owner and Unocal to (r) pn*= present and future human health and Way and the environimu as a result of the presence a% on, :alder, within or about the Property and the DNR Lease Lands of any Coolaarutati n, and (n) to place certain arse teslrictons on the sty m pe pommy AGREEMENT & DECLARATION: In conaadabon of valm the receipt and a drmeney of which are hereby acknowledged, and in c tsWe ition of the rectlels which are hereby mcorpmaoed hum by this refeeace, Unocal and Owner agree as follows 1 Defuntions As used herein, the following bens shall have the respective meanings set forth below Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Sale Agreement .• "AgmW, as used herein, shall mean any federal, state or local goveisanennt authonty, excluding Owner, actually asserting 3unadiction over conditions of Contamination on the Property ".+ Fpl Mtk Contanunat<on", as used herent, shall mean Contamination of the Real Property caused by Unocal during its ownership of the Real Property and Unocal's Adjacent Properties from use of the Real Property and Unocal's Adjacent Properties as a facility for the storage and handling of fuel hydrocarbons "C on' shall mean any hazardous or toxic material, substance, chernical or waste, eontimmiant, emission, discharge or pollutant or comparable material listed, identified or regulated pursuant to any federal, state or local law, ordmince or regulation which has as a purpose the protection of health, safety or the environment, including but not limited to, asbestos, petroleum or petroleum products. inethaac or and natural gas or wastes derived therefrom and including hazardous materials as defined under the federal Comprehensive Envtronniental Respomr, Compensation and liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U S C 19601 et seq , Hazardous Matenals?ranspoitation Act, 49 US C § 1801 et seq , Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U S C § 6901 er seq , the Clean Water Act, 42 U S C § 1251 et seq , the Washington Environmental Policy Act, RCW Ch 43 21, the Washington water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90 48 010 et seq , the Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act, RCW Ch 70105, the Washington Model Toxic& Control Act RCW Ch 70 1051), and the regulations promulgated thereunder " =" shall mean the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources "P)_NR_.La" shall mean that certain Harbor Area Lesee No 22.002684, between the State of Washurgtori. Department of Natural Resources, as lessor, and Unocal, as lessee, dated February 1989, together with any amendments thereto, with respect to certain leased tidelands "DNR Lease Lands" shall mean those certain tidelands that are leased pursuant to the DNR Lease "Imnrovemm4" shall mean those certain improvements which improve the Real Property, as further described on Exinbrt A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which improvements include that certain dock/pier 363334 11019405 ODOM 200112200730 5 O N C 0 E w 4- 0 r U r- O 0 Cn 0 c c m E ai ai Q m U) Ca m is L n_ w c ai E 0 a Packet Pg. 365 8.3.c "QmmDGmwt 'shall mean, mdmdw* and collectively, Owner and its parmit, subsidiary and affiliated or sucoaesor entrttes, their tespectme officers, dm+xtors,members, partners. agettts, servants and employew. arty tamtt, lessee or other peraan orratity havmg. chtititing or asserting any mace m the Property or any portion, thereof by, under or through Qwner or any other ineniber of the Owner Group, their respective gusrdans. mutes, executors and ad mintstlaum all of their respective successors and assigns, and any subsequent owner of any interest wbattoevar and however acquured in the Property 'llogatr shah man, collectively, the Real Property and the huprovements mean, collectively, certain lands (the " dawh-) and certain fee: -awned tidelands (the `'�, all as more particularly described on Exhibit attachod hereto and incorporated herein by thts rde recce, commonly known as IrdlnOrtds Mama Beach "Released Chums" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5 bwed "Sale shall nmm that certtan Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions executed by Unocal, as Company, and Owner, as Buyer, pertaining to the Property and resulting in recordation of this Agreement "Unocal Grouts' shall mean, individually and collectively, Unocal and its parent, sitbsndtaty, affiliated and successor companies, including but not limited to Unocal Carporstton, and their irspective officers, directors, abar+eholders, members, painters, agents, servants and employees "Unocal's Adtaeent Pronertus" shah mutt those certain venous parcels of real property to the east of the Aral Ptvpe rty owned by Unocal as of the dw a hereof, as further desenbed in Exhibit B attached hereto and uiemporated hermn by tins reference 2 Disclosure of Prior Use and Other Matters Owner, for itself and Owner Quip, hereby acknowledges (i) that the Property and the k4mrl eild mimed under the DNR Lease is adjacent to property which was once used for the storage and handling of fuel hydrae wborm, and that fuel hydrocarbons were transported across the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, (u) that Contamination ation may be present on the Property and the DNR Lease Lands as the result of the transportation and hanidling of fuel hydrocarbons, (nt) that there exists no "no farther action" letter or equivalent from the applicable Agency for any of the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, that no such letters may ever be issued in connection with the Property and the DNR Lease I, and s, that Unocal will take no action to obtain any such letters for the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, and that Owner will endeavor to obtain a no finiher action letter frwn the applicable agency hosed on sediments testing during its due diligence of the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, (rv) Owner had an extensive opportunity to otherwise perform and has performed environmental dire dingmce on the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, and (y) Owner has released and wdemmifted Unocal to the Sale Agreen emit wtth respect to the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, including with respect to any Contantmation thereof, with certain exceptions that are limited in time and scope and to certain parties 3 ZMMM atMIW Use Covenants / ]testnch ms Owner, for itself and Owner Group. and for the benefit of Woaal Group, hereby agrees sad oavenants that each member of Owner Group, while it owns or las an ownership interest n, operates or manages the Property. will comply with all federal, stare anal local laws and guidelines respecting any Cadarmnatum at, on. ender, within or about the Property, including without lirnttamon any such laws or guidelines affecting or pertaming to the use of the Property on account of the priasencc or potential preo mce of Contamination Without lmtutmg the ge ncrality of the 363534 U019403 0=4 20011220073E Q Packet Pg. 366 8.3.c f=Wing, Owner, for Itself and Owner Group, hereby agrees and covenants not to (1) install at the Real Property any well for the purpose of bringing Sm ndwater to the surface as a === of water for driniaag, irrigation or any other benefaal use of groundwater which is or may be affected by Ceaummation. and (n) use any groundwata from the Real Property for drmlong, rriphon or any other bens ical me, for so long as my Coiataamattan is or may be present in quantities or concentrations rendering such groundwater unsuitable for beneficial uses unless such water to be brought to the surface or used is ttsated accordingto applicable gov=mentsl standards and guideiraes Notw ithstendm g the foregomg, alaetatiaos of existing groundwater flow resulting in changes to surface water fmaires an the Property shall not be psoiubded hereunder The restrictions provided by (t) and (u) above shall not construed to preclude the oiemimt of surface wirier feat rues Owner, for itself and Owner Group, acknowledges and agmes that the foregoing envaummental covenants and restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect present and florae humeri bealth aid safety and the mvtronment as a result of the seders orpotential presence at. on, under, within or about the Property of any Contamination 4 CvmgMj Use QM= Y Restrictions Owner, for itself and Owner Croup, and for the benefit of Unocal Group, hereby covenants that it will earnply with and agrees that the Property shall be restricted to public pant, beach, open space or other public purposes in oomplianc a with all applicable laws and regulations in perpetuity Owner, an behalf of itself and Owner Group, understands and ackwWledges that the feregmng use restrictions in perpetuity and covenants to comply therewith were material inducements to Unocal to enter into the Sale Agreement 5 Fog Horn Cove trots Owner, for itself and Owner Group, hereby aeknowkxka the existanx of a fog ham at the per and covenants that Owner and each member of Owner Group will comply with the requirements of law with respect thereto, including but not limited to any requuwou of the Coast Guard to sound the fog horn under certain conditions 6 Release Owner, for itself and Owner Group, aclrnowdedges that the Mowing ptovrswns are binding upon Owner and Owner Group Owner, for itself and Owner Group, agrees, subject to Sections 5 2 and 6 of the Sale Agreement regarding Applicable Contamination, that it is the express intent of the parties that (t) the risk of any Contamination on, under, within or emanating firm the Property and the DNR Lease Lands shall shift to Owner, and (it) Unocal shall have no obligation for any Contamination, on, under, within. or emanating fi= the Property and the DNR Leese Lands. including but not limited to any remediation thereof Expressly, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Unocal shall have no liability for Batton of any Contamination of the Property and the DNR Lease Lands, for changes m any laws, regulatim, guidelines or other critena concerning appropriate levels of cleanup of such Contamnnabon, or for any third -party claims resulting from any such Contamination Subject to Sections 5 2 and 6 of the Sale Agreement regarding Applicable Contamination, Owner, for itself and Owner Group, hereby retesses Unocal and each member of Unocal Group from all claims, liability, damages, demands, costs, expenses, and causes of aman of all lands, arising out of or in connection with the existence, assessment or reriediation of C dammati n upon, cinder, m, or emanating from the sobs. sediments, groundwater, bodies of water, or surface waters of the Property and the DNR In Lards, including any Contamination related to the docktpier, including without limitation any elanna for death, bodily uguiiy. illnos, or property damage or for any chums for any special, mdvect, or consequential damages (including but not limited to claims for loss of use, rents. onttctpated profit or business opportunity, or business interruption, diminution in value, or mental or emotional distress or frees of maury or ilimess). trespass, nuisance or otherwise, for any response costs it may mein with respect to 3635341/01111405 00004 4 20o112200730 Packet Pg. 367 8.3.c the Property end the DNR Lease Lands, under any existmg or f it re federal, state or local law, statute, Ordinance, regulation, legal cause of action or theory of any land, including but not limited to any claim under CERCLA (42 USC 9601 ALM ), RCRA (42 USC 6901 d sex N ft Waalanglon Model Taxies Control Act (RCW Ch 70105D), or similar or comparable state, federal. or local laws (mdhviduitUy and collectively, ') Owner. for itself and Owner Chang, findier recognum that there is a risk tint Owner or Owner Group will incur Released Mum or suffer Was, damage or injuries which are in some way caused by the matters which are the subject of this release, and which may be tmlotown or imoftipated, at the time of Claw of Eacsow. and Owner and each member of Owner Group assarees this rusk and agrees that this r+elesse shall apply to all such unknown or unanticipated Released Claims, loss, dammge, or injury and hereby waives any and all right under Caltforma Civil Code §I542 or any sumlar or com>patable Washington law California Civil Code J 1542 reads as follows " A general release does not wmid to chums which the creditor does not ]mow or suspect to exist in has favor at the tune of executing the release, which if known by him must have nutanally affected his sddement with the debtor OWNER'S RGTIAL S 71 Owner, for itself and Owner Group, acknowledges that (a) The provisions contained he= are not a representation or warranty by Unocal that the Property contains no Contanurnahon or Applicable Coiftnanatiom (b) The provisions contained heirem are not an adinission by Unocal as to the extsoatce of any Contamination or Applicable Cantarnriatton on the Property (e) Except as set forth in Paragraph 6 harem. the provisions contained harem are not an inde r mity by Unocal of Owner. any member of Owner Group, or any thud party regarding any envy wwmtW or other matter concerning the Property (d) Tine provis3om contained herein create no rights in any third party 72 The above covenants, conditions, environmental restrictions, wavers, releases and agi maients we environmental sg with the land that sWU bind each and every ietember of Owner Group, including wore awn owners of any mtaeiat in the Property, for the benefit of Unocal Group, including wabout limitation Unocal and its successors and assigns 73 This instrument shall be deemed to be delivered to Unocal cone rre:ntly with the delivery by Unocal of the deed to the Property phasvant to the provisions of the Sak Agreement 305M 1Ata40300004 2001 12200 73U Packet Pg. 368 8.3.c 74 As and harm, the plizal shah include the singular 75 K say povmon of this Agreement is held by a court of conVewd boa at void or uunenforceable and all avenues of appeal have been exhauxled, time to appeal has lapsed and an appall has been abmxbaed, tbm that provision of this Agreement shalt be deemed to have ban deleted, and this Agieentou as so nx dified shall it train m fWI fam and effect 76 Tbw instrument sban be governed by and ocristrued p mumt to the laws of the Soft of Washington (where the Property is located) 77 This Agreement my be executed in several counterparts and all c unU parts so executed shall constitute one Agreement binding an the parties ha vo g In the event of any conflict between the Purchase and Sale Agreement and tins Agreement and Declaration of Covenams, CmxhWm. Euvaortroco l and Use Restrictions, Waiver and Release, the Purchase and Sale Agreement shall control IN WMESS WHEREOF, this Agreement and Declaratwn of Covatants, ConditiwK Eavuonmenital Resbtc Mwk Waiver and Release is executed as of the date first sex fat& above City of Edmonds, Attest a Washington municipal corporation 8y � e � Trde 42!�Title wa Mt►s� al "Unoad": Lh= Oil Company of Cahf=a, a Cahfornia corporation Attest $y 2" MA--4 Q. ZFZ— w", None Nut A. srlth WOFT 1PF O uiR E O Titk After wrnrtwAict 36353411018M o0004 6 200112200780 Packet Pg. 369 8.3.c STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 35 COUNTY OF. 9A**m,9y ) I oer* that I know or have sawfict <y eMme that gC r &&M"N a the pm = who appeared befam me, and said person acknowledged thstbMe mgned the msbument, an asth stated thatblNhe was autironaed toe MAU this mstc = mt and acknowledged it as the wfeft of the Cl1Y OF EDMONDS, to be the fits and vahmtary act of such party for the uses and purposes nwngceed m the mstrurww DATED Aramug" /3 .2001 � re —�•• PLO G (Use tins space for nounal suimplaud) 36333o I101E/0500004 PrmtName Suawlsta a. NOTARY PUBLIC m and for the State of Wa&mgton. madmg at _ SM &A a My Appointment expres 1%f-,o�! 7 2001 12200730 Packet Pg. 370 8.3.c TE OF CALIFORNIA ) OF ) on N. appellred the bates of smms acknowledged to sne signauve an the trim UUMVAIM befot+e or, pe:smalty known to true (or proved to me an rMetim) to be the person whoa settee a mtrbmcrtbed to the wttien matrtn=t wad it he/she executed the sane to hm/her atsthortzed capacity, and d mt by htslher kV the person, or the entity upon beWof which the pmam acted. execcnted the Wttmw my band wndpftml seal (Use tins apace for notarial smnV/seal) 36353411018405 00004 Pent Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ltfr,r 0 tang at M ltittalilt expires vs 8 200112200730 Packet Pg. 371 8.3.c STATE OR CAUFORNIA ) )SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ON DsrMM M 2001 BEFORE ME, NEDI A WOLLNMJR. NOTARY PUBLIC PERSOIYLLLY APPEARED MARK A SMMTH PERSONALLY IWOWN TD ME TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME 18 SUBBCREEOTO THE W MIN M18TRUNIM AND ACWWWUMQW TOME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HE SKMATURE ON THE ■iITMAUNs THE PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMBIT WITNESS my halo! and off cal seal -;�� e�--...P NOTARY'S SIGNATURE E1901 A. MfOflleN COMMON ON 012Nme ATTENTION NOTARY Although the BfforrIuMm requested below is OPTIONAL, It could prevent fraudulent aflechment of thus certificate to unauthorized document DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT (For Edmonds Termmml ProoeAY. Parcel No 182703,24019M NUMBER OF PAGES a yeas Buss EYhibft'& . !�1 a B• - a oases = 9 Mes total excludme Dory Oases DATE OF DOCUMENT December 17. 2W1 CAPACITY OF SIGNER Attomav-in-Fact SIGNER REPRESENTS. o rnMon Or! G,.:.� of M'-aftfomm. a Gahfonna caM900on SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ARM Gary Haskenson, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, a Washmgton munmWal corporation 20011220073U Packet Pg. 372 8.3.c DESCi1IP1YONOFIRLIL PIWPBRTY ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVEIDA M LOT 1 AND OF TIDELAND LOT 1, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W M . IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WAMM4Gi'ON, LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY AS CONVEYED BY INSTRL]MENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF DEEDS, PAGE 132 AND IN VOLUME 38 OF DEEDS, PAGE 412. AND LYING SOUTITItLY OF O THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE y BEOD04ING AT A POINT OF NrERSECTION OF ORIGINAL WESTERLY L M OF GREAT o NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAIDID E SECTION 26, SAID POINT BEING 688 03 FEET WESTERLY OF THE NORTH QUARTER w CORNER OF SAID SECTION, — THENCE SOUTH 42° 34'34" WEST, 5417 FEET. >, THENCE SOUTH 4702576" EAST 150 00 FEET, v THENCE SOUTH 4r34'34" WEST, 765 65 FEET, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING O OF SAID LINE, 0 Cn THENCE NORTH 47°2576" WEST 41811 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE (BEING PARCEL 1 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE ° NUMBER 9101160175) D r c E a� a� L a U) 06 Cu c,> L W d E c,> a 363534 1101840 00004 200112200730 Packet Pg. 373 8.3.c DESC�P'ITON OF The Real Property u improved wdL the folknnng nap mvettmu Dacldpter' mck dmg all mtpmvtuomta and sppmunsum tbamm mduft but not lumped to the wharf Wditlm 2 Utllmes end ptpmg wtthm the bourAutea of the Property, mchtdmg but not hmdcd to all tmltttes and pig below ground or an the docidpkr, 3 Psvwg mad mgdWt, utckWm but not hnttted to the paved pw tmg an and the mphalt walltway, end 4 Fe0=9 The dock/pter extemb wo wd beyond the DNR Levee Lamb, m adduton w bmg as aMwvemmt an the Real Property lira BiU of Sale Much a attached as EWutw F dull convey all nSK ode and mtereat of COMPANY m and to the doddpw to BUYER, mcludmg that portion, located on or watun the Rest Property and that portion exieadtna mto and beyond the DM Lease Lads 305M I/OlU SOOM 10 Z00112200730 Packet Pg. 374 8.3.c DH-(R P nM OF COMPANY'S ADJACENT PROPERIIBS LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, CITY OF EDMONDS SEIORT PLAT (S4MIS) RECORDED UNDER AUDi'MS FLU NO 9810055004. BEING A PORTION OF GOVEDGIENT LOTS I AND 3. AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEMOIN 26, TOWNSEaP 27 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST, W M 3633341 O1s40S 0000a 11 200112200730 Packet Pg. 375 8.3.d FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS This First Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions (this "First Amendment") is made this 11 "" day of March, 2005 by and between the Washington Department of Transportation, and agency of the State of Washington ("Buyer") and Union Oil of California, a California corporation ("Company"). RECITALS Buyer and Company are parties to that certain Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions dated for reference purposes January 27, 2005 (the "Purchase Agreement") for property commonly known as the Edmonds Lower Yard, as legally described on Exhibit A to the Purchase Agreement (the "Property"). Pursuant to Section 7 of the Purchase Agreement, Company provided Buyer the opportunity to review certain documents (the "Disclosure Documents") relating to the Property. A list of the Disclosure Documents was to have been attached as Exhibit H to the Purchase Agreement. Company in connection with another matter recently reviewed the documents listed as available for review and discovered that a number that were not listed on the Disclosure Document list. Company and Buyer wish to confirm the list of the Disclosure Documents available for review by Buyer, and Buyer, having now reviewed such updated list and made any further examination it deems appropriate, wishes to confirm that it wishes to go forward with the transaction. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows. 1. Exhibit H to the Purchase Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety by the document attached hereto as Attachment 1, and Company confirms that this is an accurate list of the Disclosure Documents that are available to Buyer for examination, and Buyer, having reviewed such updated list prior to execution of this First Amendment, and having made any further examination it deems appropriate, confirms that it wishes to go forward with the transaction under the Purchase Agreement. 2. Attachment 1 (the new Exhibit H) contains several references to "contains Privilege Material'. This indicates files which, if the file is requested for examination, Company will remove privileged material (e.g. attorney -client correspondence) and provide a privilege log. 3. Except as specifically provided herein, the Purchase Agreement is and remains in full force and effect. [signature blocks on next page] Y:\WP\WHB\l I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 376 8.3.d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions to be effective as of the date first above written. "Company": UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporatio By: J es J. De n Its: General Manager "Buyer": STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: 7 nka-j�� MIKE ANDERSON Its: WSF Acting Director By GERALD L. GALLINGER ts: Director of Real Estate Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _�3� ryce E. Bro Senior Counsel Office of the Attorney General Y.\WP\WHB\1180\002A021C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 377 8.3.d ATTACHMENT 1 TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BEING EXHIBIT H TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS Edmonds Terminal, General Dames & Moore 1950. Fill Soils, Proposed Asphalt Refinery, Edmonds, WA. August 2. Dames & Moore 1950. Source of Fill Soils and Placement of Fill, Proposed Asphalt Refinery, Edmonds, Washington. August 15. Dames & Moore 1951. Tank Settlements, Proposed Asphalt Plant, Union Oil Company of California, Edmonds, Washington. July 25. Dames & Moore 1955. Report of Soils Investigation, Edmonds Asphalt Refinery. May 6. GeoEngineers 1986. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. December 4. GeoEngineers 1987. Progress Report No. 1, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. August 31. GeoEngineers 1988. Progress Report No. 2, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. October 10. GeoEngineers 1989. Environmental Remediation Planning, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. March 10. GeoEngineers 1989. Progress Report No. 3, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. September 19. GeoEngineers 1989. Report of Geotechnical Services, Site Contamination Assessment, Waste Soil Stockpile Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. GeoEngineers 1990. Results of Site Characterization, Marine Diesel Spill, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. GeoEngineers 1991. Proposal for Bioremediation of Fuel -Contaminated Soil, Unocal Fuel Terminal. March 8. GeoEngineers 1991. Progress Report No. 4, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. April 19. GeoEngineers 1992. Historic Research and Remedial Investigation Report, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. September 11. Y:\WP\WHB\l I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 378 8.3.d EMCON 1994. Free Petroleum Product Recovery System Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 20. EMCON 1994. Background History Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 15. EMCON 1995. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 26. EMCON 1995. Final Upland Sediments Evaluation Work Plan. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 1. EMCON 1995. Addendum, Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, April 26, 1995. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 31. EMCON 1995. Existing Monitoring Well Assessment and Proposed Monitoring Well Network, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. September 21. EMCON 1995. Addendum, Existing Monitoring Well Assessment and proposed Monitoring Well Network. September 21. EMCON 1995. Third Quarter 1995 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report. November 14. EMCON 1996. Interim Deliverable, Drainage System Inventory Results, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 8. EMCON 1996. 1995 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 29. EMCON 1996. Draft Feasibility Study Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. November 25. (Final dated April 12, 1996) EMCON 1996. Final Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 12. EMCON 1996. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal RI/FS, Combustible Gas Monitoring and Evaluation. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 25. * EMCON 1996. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. Volumes I, II, H. August 23. EMCON 1997. 1996 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 27. EMCON 1997. Revised RI Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. October, as amended March 26, 1998. EMCON 1999. 1998 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report. February 25. EMCON 1998. 1997 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. March 24. Y:\WP\WHB\I I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 379 8.3.d EMCON 1998. Draft Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Alternative Cost Evaluation. April 28. [Final version dated September 11, 1998] EMCON 1998. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. June 25. EMCON 1998. Technical Memorandum regarding Groundwater Conditions at the Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal. September 11. * EMCON 1998. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation Asset Management Group. October 19. EMCON 1999. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, August 1998 and February 1999 Groundwater Data. May 13. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 1999. 1998 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 1. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2000. 1999 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. January 31. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2000. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, February 2000 Groundwater Data. July 25. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. February 2. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. 2000 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 6. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing Approach. February 21. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Summary Tables 1 and 32, Fractionated Groundwater Analytical Results. April 16. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Trestle Survey. April 26. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Memorandum regarding Unocal Edmonds Sediment Data. May 14. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Memorandum regarding Technical Issues Regarding the Development of Human Health -based Surface Water Cleanup Levels for Petroleum Hydrocarbons. May 14. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. SEPA Checklist for Interim Actions and Flood Plain Map. May 30. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Interim Action Report. June 2. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan. June 2. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Updated Feasibility Study Work Plan. June 2. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Asbestos and Lead Paint Survey. June 4. Y:\WP\WHB\l 180\002A02 (C. W HB.DOC Packet Pg. 380 8.3.d * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, 4 Volumes. June 9. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Responses to WA DOE Questions on February 2001 Tiered Approach. June 29. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Responses of Construction Documents Associated with Interim Action at Unocal Edmonds Terminal. July 12. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of post -RI Groundwater Data from MW-7U. July 23. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. WET Testing Issue Paper, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. October 3. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. October 15. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of laboratory Report Associated with Sand Blast Grit Sample. October 29. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Admiral Way Soil Boring Data. October 30. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of MTBE Data. October 31. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Draft Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Work Plan. January 31. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Interim Action Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal." February 28. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Workplan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. February 28. Parametrix 1991. Draft Site Hazard Assessment Work Plan, Unocal, Edmonds Terminal, Site Assessments. (Final Version June, 1991) Parametrix 1991. Site Hazard Assessment Summary Report for Unocal Tank Farm, Edmonds, Washington, prepared for Washington Department of Ecology. June. Public Participation Plan, 1996, Unocal Corporation and State of Washington Department of Ecology, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. March. West Pac International, Inc. 1996. Above Ground Tank Inspection, Unocal Edmonds, Washington. June. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, September 2001 Surface Water Data. November 21. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2003. Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, V. I. April 28. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, V. H, Appendices A-C. April 28. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, V. III, Appendix D. April 28. Y:\W%WHB\t 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 381 8.3.d Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, V. IV, Appendix E — H. April 28. * CH2MHILL 2000. Draft Workplan, City of Edmonds Sediment Investigation. June. EHS International, Inc. Limited Hazardous Materials Survey Report. May 30. Terra Associates 2001. Preliminary Test Pit Logs, Unocal Site. October 23. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of Admiral Way Soil Boring Data. October 30. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Transmittal of MTBE Data. October 31. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. November 2001. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Operation and Maintenance Manual, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. December 28. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, GeoEngineers Boring Logs. February 5. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Transmittal of MEC Analytical Systems' Standard Operating Procedures for Pimephales, Promelas, Ceriodaphnia Dupia, Menidia Beryllina and Mysidopsis Bahia (chronic tests). February 7. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. November 2001 Groundwater Monitoring Event, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. March 18. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Storm Water Bioassay Results. March 21 Austin Company Engineers and Builders. 1963. Edmonds Industrial Park. November 20. Report, "Unocal Point Edwards Fueling Facility." [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 1991 — 1993, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1994 —1995, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1996 —1997, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1998 — 2002, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding environmental testing and remediation efforts. Correspondence, 2003, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1998 — 2002, Unocal with State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Y:\WP\WHB\I I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 382 8.3.d Correspondence, 2003 — 2004, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding NPDES Permit Quarterly Discharge Monitoring Report. Correspondence, State of Washington Department of Ecology to W. Driscoll, regarding Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 2001, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding September 2001 Surface Water Data. November 21. Correspondence, 1996, to State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Evaluation of Interim Product Recovery Alternatives, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. April 17. Correspondence, 2001, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding June 2001 Groundwater Data. November 29. Correspondence, 2001, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding September 2001 Surface water Data. November 29. State of Washington Department of Ecology. Agreed Order regarding Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Correspondence, 1996, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Preliminary Uplands Sediment Data Table. June 14. Correspondence, 2003, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Youth of Method of Groundwater Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Cleanup Levels, for developing Method B Surface Water Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Cleanup Levels per WAC 173-340-730(3). May 8. Correspondence, 1992 —1993, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1994, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1995, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1996, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1997, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1955-1957, Unocal, regarding development of Edmonds Beach Property, development costs, and fill material usage. Memo, 1992, R. Merritt. to J .Kerrigan, regarding Unocal Edmonds PCS Facility and related projects. November 6. Correspondence, 1995 — 1997, Lund Consulting, Inc., regarding Edmonds Terminal. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 2000 — 2003, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., regarding various environmental issues. Correspondence, 1992 — 1994, EMCON, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Y:\WP\WHB\1180\002A021 C.WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 383 8.3.d Correspondence, 1994 —1995, EMCON, regarding Interim Product Recovery operations, Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Correspondence, 1995, EMCON, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1996, EMCON, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1997, EMCON, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1998 —1999, EMCON, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1996 — 1997, GeoEngineers, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1990, GeoEngineers, regarding Workplan Continuing Site Assessment, Unocal Terminal. July 16. Correspondence, Seacor, regarding environmental testing at Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1998, Landau Associates, Inc., regarding environmental testing and Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 2001, Snohomish Health District to W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds), regarding site hazard assessment — Port of Edmonds. January 19. Correspondence, 1996 — 1997, W&H Pacific, regarding Point Edwards Property Alternative. Correspondence, 1995, Analytical Technologies, Inc., regarding sediment analyses at Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1996 — 1997, ECAC (Edmonds Citizens Awareness Committee), regarding environmental issues. Correspondence, 2001, Triad Associates, regarding the Triad Point Edwards Site. Correspondence, 1950, Port of Edmonds regarding Yacht Basin. Correspondence and notes, 1988 — 1989, regarding Lake McGuire Monitoring Project, Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1988 — 1991, regarding Edmonds Soil Storage Monitoring. Correspondence and facility inspection forms, U.S. Coast Guard, regarding Edmonds Terminal. Data, 1999 — 2001, containing free product recovery information regarding Edmonds Terminal. North Creek Analytical 1996. Sample Reports regarding Edmonds Terminal. Pentec Environmental 1998. Evaluation of Habitat Benefits and Impacts Associated with the Proposed Daylighting of the Outlet from Edmonds Marsh. December 18. Unocal. Stormwater Management and Reports, Edmonds Terminal. Newspaper articles regarding Edmonds Terminal. Y:\WP\WHB\1180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 384 8.3.d Public relations regarding environmental studies and cleanup, Edmonds Terminal. RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting, 1995 —1996, Edmonds Terminal. Veco, Inc. 1992. Draft Design and Operations Plan, Unocal — Edmonds Thermal Desorption Soil Recycling Facility. June 24. Product materials and correspondence regarding Underground Storage Tanks (UST). Unocal 1990. Reports and memoranda regarding Chevron spill at Point Wells. Analytical Technologies 1995. Sample Analysis Reports. Analytical Technologies 1996. Sample Analysis Reports. MultiChem Analytical Services 1997. Sample Analysis Reports. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Air Monitoring Reports. Coast Guard Inspections, 1991. Edmonds Marketing Terminal Wharf Rehabilitation Design Summary. February 1974. David Evans & Associates, Inc. 2002. Draft "Site Master Plan for Point Edwards, Edmonds, Washington." February 1. Memoranda, 1992, G.E. Gunderson (Unocal) to P.C. Stern, regarding Edmonds Terminal status. July 21 Memoranda, Jim Clark (Unocal) to Gary Gunderson, regarding GeoEngineers' Site Assessment Documents. Memoranda, 2004, Linda Mortensen and Less Williams (Integral Consulting, Inc.) to Mike Staton, regarding Preliminary Sediment Bioassay Results for Unocal Site, Edmonds, Washington. January 27. Memoranda, 1989, Unocal, regarding Site Contamination Assessment, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Terminal. September 14. Memoranda, 1937, Unocal, regarding tank construction, wharf repairs, tank locations, asphalt refinery, expenditures for terminal improvements and repairs, annexation of site to City limits, oil storage, disposal of sludge, and spurtrack easements. Diagram, 1995, Triad Associates, "Wetlands and Slope Analysis Exhibit, Edmonds Tank Farm, City of Edmonds, Washington." February 22. Maps and diagrams, including topographical map, zoning map, comprehensive plan map, flood plane map, area of contamination site map, general site map showing subdivisions lease to City lease from Department of Natural Resources and Salmon Hatchery. WestPac 1996. Unocal Tank Inspections, Edmonds Terminal. July. Prezart 1996. Asbestos Survey, Edmonds Tank Farm, Edmonds, WA. September 10. Y:\WP\WHB\I 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 385 8.3.d Emerald Services 2001. Unocal Marketing Terminal, Edmonds Washington, Above Ground Tank Inspection Report (Upper Yard). June. EHS Environmental 2001. Asbestos Good Faith Survey, Unocal Fueling Facility. June 28. Documents concerning Marina Beach, Tidelands and Neighboring Properties: CH2M Hill 2000. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Edmonds Marina Beach Park, Prepared for the City of Edmonds. August. CH2M Hill 2000. Work Plan, City of Edmonds Sediment Investigation, prepared for the City of Edmonds. August. CH2Mhill 2000. Results of the Upland and Sediment Investigations. Correspondence to Bill Joyce. November 7. CH2Mhill 2000. Final Report — City of Edmonds, Sediment Investigation. Correspondence to Lisa Saban (CH2Mh0). December 29. Landau Associates, Inc. 1998. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigations, South Marina, Port of Edmonds, Washington. April8. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2000. Sediment Sampling Results, Unocal Pier Area. May 16. ThermoRetec 2000. Results of Brownfields Scoping Analysis - Unocal Edmonds Terminal. June 23. Snohomish County Health District 2001. Site Hazard Assessment — Port of Edmonds, 400 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington. January 19. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources 2001. City of Edmonds Sediment Investigation. January 24. Agreement, 1923, with Great Northern Railway Company. June 1. Lease, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Harbor Lease No. 22-002684. Property, Title documents regarding Marina Beach. Insurance, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Schedules A and B, regarding Marina Beach Edmonds Terminal property, proposed insured: City of Edmonds. Insurance, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Preliminary Title Report, Order No. 365685. Correspondence, 1999, regarding Marina Beach development and sale. Y:\WP\WHB\I I60\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 386 8.3.d Diagram, "Boring locations, Marina Beach Park." Undated. Diagram, 1982, General Arrangement Drawing No. L2A151 for Wharf. March 16. Documents concerning Harbor Square Property: Landau Associates, Inc. Survey Field notes (1991) with sample report data (1991-1993). Landau Associates, Inc. 1996. Results of Field Explorations and Analyses for Geotechnical Design Recommendation for Proposed Dry Stack Boat Storage Facility at Port of Edmonds. March 4. Landau Associates, Inc. 1996. GeoTechnical Engineering Design Proposed Port of Edmonds Dry Stack Boat Storage, Edmonds, Washington. March 14. Memo, 1963, W. Martin to C.E. Rathbone (Unocal), regarding July 23, 1963, lease to American Tar Co. November 8. Memo, 1963, Martin to Niven (Unocal), regarding lease cancellation with Tri-City Sand & Gravel Co. April 30. Memo, 1963, Flanagan to Boehmer (Unocal), regarding Earl L. Joplin lease. July 25. Memo, 1963, Flanagan to Boehmer (Unocal), regarding American Tar lease. July 25. Memo, 1958, Hovland to Schafer (Unocal), regarding proposed lease to Joplin Paving Company. January 23. Memo, 1958, Monroe to Hiatt, regarding Lease Agreement with General American Transportation Corporation. July 30. Memo, 1949, Unocal to Herffernan Jr., General American Transportation Corp., regarding third party industry track agreement. February 28. Memo, 1951, regarding Lease Agreement with General American Transportation Company, dated July 27, 1948. February 12. Memo, 1958, Monroe to Schafer, regarding General American Transportation Corp. Lease Agreement. May 1. Lease Agreement, 1948, Unocal and General American Transportation Corporation (GATX). July 27. Lease Agreement, 1963, Unocal and Earl L. Joplin. July 23. Lease Agreement, 1958, Unocal and Earl L. Joplin. June 2. Lease Agreement, (year illegible), Unocal and Tri-City Sand & Gravel Co. May 5. Lease Agreement, 1958, Unocal and General American Transportation Corporation. July 31. Y:\WP\WHB\I 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 387 8.3.d Lease Agreement, 1958, Great Northern Railway Company, Unocal, and General American Transportation Corporation. August 1. Lease, 1964, Unocal and Roy Allen. March 1. Lease Agreement, 1958, Unocal and Earl L. Joplin. June 2. Correspondence, 2001, S. Becker (State of Washington Department of Ecology) to W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds), regarding Independent Remedial Action, Harbor Square. September 17. Correspondence, 2000, W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds) to M. Brearley (Unocal), regarding Potential Environmental Liability and Request to Sign Tolling Agreement, Harbor Square. February 22. Correspondence, 1999, Ritter (Snohomish Health District) to G. Gunderson (Unocal), regarding Site Hazard Assessment Conducted at Harbor Square. January 27. Correspondence, 1996, W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds) to BNSF, GATX, and William Joplin Company, regarding Notice of Environmental Contamination and potential liability. August 6. Correspondence, 2001, S. Becker (State of Washington Department of Ecology) to W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds), regarding independent remedial action at Harbor Square. September 17. Correspondence, 2000, W. Toskey (Port of Edmonds) to M. Brearley (Unocal), regarding Potential Environmental Liability and Request to Sign Tolling Agreement, Harbor Square Property. February 26. Correspondence, 1994, Sander (Port of Edmonds) to J. Comstock (Unocal), regarding cooperative remediation efforts. August 26. Fax correspondence, 2002, Landau Associates Inc. to Unocal, enclosing October 31, 2002, correspondence/report regarding Independent Remedial Action -Bunker C Fuel Oil, Harbor Square Complex Storm Sewer System; revised site map and legal description of Harbor Square Site recorded with Snohomish County; and packet of information related to South Marina site investigations. August 29. Documents Concernine Upper Yard Property GeoEngineers 1988. Report of Geotechnical Services, Subsurface Contamination Study, Upland Fuel Tank Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. * GeoEngineers 1991. Draft Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad, Edmonds, WA. September 5. * Geo Environmental Services 1992. Draft Subsurface Contamination Study, Western Portion, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. November 19. GeoEngineers 1993. Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad Properties, Edmonds, Washington. EMCON 1996. Preliminary Upper Yard Hydrogeology Evaluation, Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 6. Y:\WP\WHB\I 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 388 8.3.d Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2000. Memorandum regarding Permits/Approvals for Upper Yard Soil Removal. October 5. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Technical Memorandum, Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation of Upper Yard. November 30. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Draft Upper Yard Compliance Monitoring Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. December 18. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures for Groundwater Monitoring Well Borings, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Terminal Upper Yard. January 25. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Draft Table 1-1, TPH results from the Upper Yard test pits, and Draft Drawing 3, displaying all TPH results for the Upper Yard. March 14. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Upper Yard Test Pit Soil Samples, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. March 18. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Upper Yard Test Pit Data 2001/2002. March 22. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Draft Upper Yard Compliance Monitoring Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. April 9. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2003. Draft Addendum to Upper Yard Interim Action Report, Meadows Area 9 and 10 Unocal Edmonds Terminal." October 9. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Revised Section of Technical Specifications for Upper Yard Interim Action and Drawing #5. December 3. Adolfson & Associates 1995. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Wetlands Study, Edmonds, WA (Upper Yard tank demolition). February. ICONCO, Inc. 2004. Site Specific Health & Safety Plan, Unocal Corp., Edmonds Tank Farm facility (Upper Yard tank demolition). June 20. ICONCO, Inc. 2001. Environmental Protection Plan (Demolition), for Unocal Corp, Edmonds Tank Farm Facility (Upper Yard tank demolition). June 20. ICONCO, Inc. 2001. Demolition Work Plan for Unocal Corp., Edmonds Tank Farm Facility (Upper Yard tank demolition). June 20. ICONCO, Inc. 2001. Edmonds Tank Farm Facility, Phase I -Demolition, Scope of Work (Upper Yard tank demolition). February. ICONCO, Inc. Edmonds Tank Farm Facility, Demolition, Environmental Protection (Upper Yard tank demolition). Undated. Correspondence, 2003 — 2004, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Upper Yard. Y:\WP\WHB\l 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 389 8.3.d Correspondence, 2001, Unocal, regarding Upper Yard Purchase Agreement/Point Edwards Property. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 2003, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., regarding backfill specifications and laboratory data for the Upper Yard. Correspondence, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc,. regarding Upper Yard Interim Action, containing lab reports and soil sampling. Correspondence regarding Upper Yard sale agreement, including exhibits for the draft sale agreement with Triad, certificate of formation, agreement of Point Edwards LLC, related financial statements, e- mail correspondence regarding comments to draft agreements [Contains Privilege Material], correspondence regarding modifications to indemnifications and releases. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 2002, Unocal, regarding escrow documents relating to Edmonds Terminal Upper Yard sale. May 8. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 2003, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding Upper Yard Interim Action Plan. E-mails, correspondence, and notes, 2001 — 2002, Unocal, regarding Upper Yard Purchase and Sale. [Contains Privilege Material] Memos, 1996, Unocal, regarding tank removal and fuel distribution facilities, Edmonds Terminal. Title documentation, Upper Yard. Agreement, 2000, Historic Deeds Easement Agreement regarding Upper and Lower Yards. September 6. Updated Market Analysis for Point Edwards Property, 1998, "Highest and Best Use/Feasibility Update for the Unocal Point Edwards Property." July. David Evans and Associates 2002. Revised final "Site Master Plan for Point Edwards, Edmonds, Washington." May 14. City Foresters, Inc. 2002. "Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm, Point Edwards Greenbelt Forest, Conditions, Recommendations, and Request for Consideration for Triad Development/Point Edwards, L.L.C." Prezart. Lead Sampling, Unocal Tank Farm, Unocal Real estate, Edmonds, WA (Upper Yard tank demolition). Correspondence, certificates of insurance regarding demolition project (Upper Yard tank demolition). Poggemeyer 2001. Structural Site Visit Report, Earthquake Response (Upper Yard tank demolition). April 9. City of Edmonds. Construction Permits regarding demolition project (Upper Yard tank demolition). WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Y:\WP\WHB\1180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 390 8.3.d E-mails, notes, and internal legal memoranda, Unocal, regarding Point Edwards. [Contains Privilege Material] Documents Concerning Lower Yard Property * GeoEngineers 1990. Draft Remedial Alternatives Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. November 27. * GeoEngineers 1990. Draft Site Contamination Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds, Fuel Terminal, GeoEngineers, and related progress report. GeoEngineers 1991. Site Contamination Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Lower Yard Interim Action. May 14. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Bidding Documents for Lower Yard Interim Action. July 10. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Construction Documents for Lower Yard Interim Action. July 11. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures for Groundwater Monitoring Well Borings, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Lower Yard. January 21. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2001. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures for Groundwater Monitoring Well Borings, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Lower Yard. January 21. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2002. Draft Lower Yard Interim Action As -built Report. January 31. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2004. Draft 2003 Lower Yard Interim Action As -Built Report, V. 1. February 26. * Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 2004. Draft 2003 Lower Yard Interim Action As -Built Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal - Text, Tables, Figures, and Lab Reports. February 26. Triad Associates 2001. Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm, Undisturbed Ground Study and Request for Consideration. December 4. Report, 2000, regarding Limited Summary Appraisal of Edmonds Lower Yard. September 12. Correspondence, 1998, Landau Associates, Inc. to Port of Edmonds, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigations, South Marina, Port of Edmonds. April 8. Correspondence, 2001, City of Edmonds, regarding Lower Yard re -zone. Correspondence, 2003, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., regarding documents associated with Draft Interim Action Report Workplan and Basin One for the Southwest Lower Yard. Lease, 1984, Unocal and Laebuston Salmon Chapter (Deer Creek Hatchery Project). August 10. Y:\WP\WHB\I I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 391 8.3.d Exhibit A, Request for Services Form, Waste Management Inc. Inc. for Lower Yard. Waste Management & Rinker 2003. Bills of Lading. Materials regarding excavated soils, Lower Yard Interim Action. Documents Concernine Real Estate/Leases Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc. 1991. "Market Value Appraisal of Edmonds Fuel Terminal," for Unocal Fuel Storage and Distribution Terminal. May 24. Re -Solve (Anthony Gibbons and Steven D. Matthews) 2002. Market Study of Point Edwards Site, MP2 Area, Edmonds, Washington. August 12. CH2MHILL 1996. "Edmonds Crossing a Multi -Moto Transportation Center, Implementation Plan." April. Appraisal, 1976, Appraisal of Filled Industrial Site located at southwest corner of Dayton Street and State Highway 104. December 29. Appraisal, 1980, Real Estate Appraisal, Union Oil Marsh. April 30. Appraisal, 1998, Restricted Appraisal of Edmonds Parcel One and Wharf property. March 16. Deed, 1944, Deed of Property, Union Oil Company of California to A.B. Miller and Laura V. Miller, (surplus parcel sale). Lease, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, Harbor Lease No. 22-002684. Lease, 1957, original Lease and Bond of Harbor Areas to Union Oil Company of California. July 5. Agreement, 1957, City of Edmonds and Unocal. Deed, 1957, Quit Claim Deed, Port of Edmonds to Union Oil Company of California. May 6. Lease Agreement, 1958, Union Oil Company of California and Earl L. Joplin. June 2. Lease Agreement, 1961, Union Oil Company of California and Tri-City Sand and Gravel Company. May 5. Agreement, 1963, Cancellation Agreement, cancellation of the American Tar Company Lease, effective November 1, 1963. July 23. Lease Agreement, 1964, Union Oil Company of California and Roy Allen. March 1. Agreement, 1968, Union Oil Company of California and Port of Edmonds. November 1. Lease, 1969, Municipal Lease, Union Oil Company of California and the City of Edmonds. February 3. Agreement, 1974, Union Oil Company of California and ASARCO. October 9. Agreement, 1976, Union Oil Company of California and Pacific Northern Oil Company. September 1. Y:\WP\WHB\I I80\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 392 8.3.d Agreement, 1979, Termination Agreement, Burlington Northern and Union Oil Company of California, covering Spurtrack Agreement of August 8, 1958. Effective July 6. Agreement, 1980, Concomitant Zoning Agreement, Unocal and City of Edmonds. February 18. Lease, 1982, Municipal Lease, Union Oil Company of California and City of Edmonds. March 19. Agreement, 1984, License Agreement, Unocal and City of Edmonds. July 12. Lease, 1986, Municipal Lease Amendment, Unocal and City of Edmonds. July 14. Lease, 1988, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, Harbor Area Lease No. 22-002684. February 8. Agreement, 1997, Port of Edmonds and Union Oil Company of California. January 13. Lease, Edmonds Terminal Tosco. Unsigned, undated. Lease, 1997, Edmonds Terminal Lease, Unocal and PNEC Corporation. July 1. Agreement, 2000, Easement Agreement, Port of Edmonds and Unocal. September 8. Easement, 1944, Easement for Spurtrack, Union Oil Company of California and Great Northern Railway Company, unsigned. Easement, 1979, Terminal Easement to City of Edmonds for City water main. November 7. Easement and Agreement, 1971, Union Oil Company of California and State of Washington Department of Transportation, regarding storm sewer outflow. December 6. Lease, 1977, Harbor Lease Bond No. 2438. July 5. Easement, Pacific Northwest Bell, regarding underground communication lines. Undated. Agreement, 1980, Zoning Agreement, Unocal and City of Edmonds, "Concomitant Zoning Agreement." February 18. Correspondence, 1944, regarding property survey at Edmonds. Correspondence, 1957, Union Oil Company of California, regarding proposed yacht harbor, Port of Edmonds. February and March. [Contains Privilege Material] Correspondence, 1961, regarding drainage system updates. Correspondence, 1995 —1996, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, regarding aquatic leases. Correspondence, 1999 — 2000, Unocal, regarding real estate transactions, including certificates of insurance, draft Edmonds Terminal leases, proposed leases, and purchase and sale. Correspondence, 1997, Unocal, regarding fair lease rates. Correspondence, 1997-2002, regarding lease negotiations and draft leases. Y:\WP\WHB\I 1 B0\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 393 8.3.d Correspondence, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, regarding Aquatic Lease No. 22- 002684. [Contains Privilege Material] Memos, 1997, Unocal, regarding rents at the Edmonds Fuel Terminal facility. Memoranda, 1964, Unocal, regarding Edmonds Wharf repairs, includes handwritten notes. Memoranda and notes regarding fill for swamp area. Memoranda, 1974-1980, Unocal, regarding asphalt refinery, real estate use and occupancy fees, surplus property transfer to real estate department, and wharf repair. [Contains Privilege Material] Newspaper articles regarding Edmonds Terminal lease agreements and remediation efforts. Notice, 1979, Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings, Unocal and City of Edmonds. June 22. Petition, 1980, Petition for Annexation to City of Edmonds. February 18. Short Plat (S-98-018, 1998, City of Edmonds, Edmonds Tank Farm. August 19. Permit, 1961, Great Northern Railway Company and Union Oil Company of California, regarding fill material. Purchase Option, 1943, Extension of Option to Purchase to Unocal. November 24. Documents, 1998, regarding proposal to short plot including Chicago Title Insurance, land use applications, and land survey diagram. Documents regarding lease information, including Edmonds Terminal tax parcel breakdown for Lower Yard, Upper Yard, and Marina Beach. Documents regarding Edmonds Annexation, includes leases. Other GeoEngineers 1988. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Lake McGuire. December 16. GeoEngineers 1988. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. GeoEngineers 1989. Technical Report, Phase H Site Assessment, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. EMCON 1995. Monitoring Well and Soil Boring Log. Documents, 1988, regarding explosion and fire. Documents regarding Edmonds Historical/Spill Prevention Response Assessment. Documents regarding NPDES Permit, Edmonds, Washington. Y:\WP\WHB\1180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 394 8.3.d Document, 1989, Unocal spill prevention and compliance, Edmonds Terminal. Correspondence, 1992, regarding Edmonds Terminal project proposal. Oil Spill Prevention Plan, 1993 Photographs, Edmonds Terminal, includes historic photos Safety Meetings, 1991. MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) Information and Program. Quarterly Safety Audits. Unocal 1980. Incident Report Data, 1985 —1991, regarding Water Bottoms Sampling and Analysis. Correspondence, Zelo, enclosing Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Emission Points Segments and Emissions Report. Internal reports and memoranda, 1988, regarding Edmonds Tank Explosion. March 16. [Contains potentially Privilege Material] State of Washington Department of Ecology 1993. NPDES/Oil Spill Information. Correspondence to R.E. Jenkins regarding facility oil spill prevention plans. February 24. Correspondence, 1992, State of Washington Department of Ecology, regarding NPDES permit renewal application. Correspondence, 1941, Unocal, regarding proposed sewer line. Correspondence, 1967 — 1973, regarding asphalt operations and Edmonds Terminal facility improvements. Correspondence, 2001, Washington State Department of Transportation, regarding Edmonds Cross Draft EIS and Creek Realignment. February 8. Correspondence and memoranda, 1993 —1995, regarding tank cleaning. Memos and other related documentation regarding September 9, 1972, bunker oil spill. Memo, 1972, E.R. Friess to J.J. Grunewald, both Unocal employees, regarding Edmonds Terminal drainage control; photos regarding drainage ponds. July 10. Memoranda, 1971, regarding Edmonds Terminal wharf rehabilitation. Tank records, 1961, Edmonds Terminal. April 19. Tank records, 1959, Unocal, Edmonds Terminal. November 6. Y:\WP\WHB\] 180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 395 8.3.d Tank records, 1959, Edmonds Terminal. January 19. Survey, 1940, "General Arrangement Storage Station Edmonds, Washington." February 20. Aerial site photographs, 2002. Aerial site photographs, 2000. * No final version of report is available in Unocal files Y:\WP\WHB\1180\002A021 C. WHB.DOC Packet Pg. 396 8.3.e SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS This Second Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions (this "Second Amendment") is made this day of mA, 2006 by and between the Washington Department of Transportation, and agency of the Stat7 of Washington ("Buyer") and Union Oil of California, a California corporation ("Company"). RECITALS Buyer and Company are parties to that certain Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions dated for reference purposes January 27, 2005 (the "Purchase Agreement") for property commonly known as the Edmonds Lower Yard, as legally described on Exhibit B to the Purchase Agreement (the "Property"). The Purchase Agreement requires Company to prepare and submit a Proposed Remediation Plan, including Capital Remediation Work and Monitoring Work, to DOE. The Purchase Agreement further requires Company to perform the Capital Remediation Work after approval by DOE. The Purchase Agreement contains provisions for Company to obtain a Remediation Bid Price for the Capital Remediation Work, and a Payment and Performance Bond to secure performance of the Capital Remediation Work. Under the Purchase Agreement, Company is entitled to pay third parties employed to perform the Capital Remediation Work through draws from Escrow. Company has determined that it is preferable to perform Capital Remediation Work under an Interim Action, before it submits a Proposed Remediation Plan to DOE. In the Approved Remediation Plan, DOE may require Company to perform additional Capital Remediation Work, beyond that performed under the Interim Action. Thus, it is possible that Capital Remediation Work will occur in two phases. As currently drafted, the Purchase Agreement contemplates that Capital Remediation Work will occur in one phase only. Company and Buyer agree that the Purchase Agreement should be modified to reflect the fact that the Capital Remediation Work may occur in phases pursuant to the Approved Interim Action Plan and/or pursuant to the Approved Remediation Plan. Company and Buyer wish to amend the Purchase Agreement to reflect these modifications. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows. 1 of 20 Packet Pg. 397 8.3.e A. Section 3.3.2.2.1 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 3.3.2.2.1 Payment of Additional Earnest Money. Within ten (10) business days after Company has secured the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond, the Escrow Holder shall disburse to Company an amount (the "Additional Earnest Money") equal to the lesser of (i) One Million Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,500,000.00) or (ii) the amount remaining when there is subtracted from Eight Million One Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8,175,000.00) the sum of the Initial Earnest Money plus the O&M Payment, plus one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Interim Action Remediation Bid Price. The Additional Earnest Money shall be applicable to the Purchase Price but shall otherwise be non-refundable except on default by Company or if the Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions in Sections 4.2.5, 6.3.2, 6.14 or 7.4. B. Section 4.2.3 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 4.2.3 In the event Buyer desires an extended coverage policy of title insurance, Company shall reasonably cooperate with Escrow Holder and Buyer in the preparation and issuance of such policy, including the execution of such documents as may reasonably be required; provided, however, that in no event shall any matter involved in the issuance of an extended coverage title policy delay or extend any times set forth in this Agreement. Company shall pay only the premium for a standard policy of title insurance. Buyer shall pay the difference in cost in obtaining an extended coverage policy over a standard policy, including, but not limited to, any ALTA survey required for such extended coverage policy. Buyer may further identify any endorsements desired by Buyer (which shall be paid for by Buyer) and shall negotiate with the Title Company for such endorsements. The intent of the parties is that all Permitted Exceptions and all available endorsements shall be identified and the condition of title required for the Close of Escrow shall be established, prior to Company's submission of the Proposed Interim Action Report to DOE. Accordingly, Buyer shall complete any survey and endorsement negotiations prior to January 3, 2005. C. Section 5.4 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 5.4 Closing Date. Unless extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Escrow shall close within thirty (30) days after Company obtains written confirmation from DOE, as set forth in Section 8.1.1, that Company has performed the Capital Remediation Work; provided, however, that if DOE requires construction of a groundwater treatment system and discharge from the constructed treatment system meets effluent limits established in the discharge permit, as shown by Discharge Monitoring Reports prepared by Company and submitted to DOE, then in no event shall Closing occur more than one hundred twenty (120) days after Company submits to DOE a written report concluding (based on the DOE -approved methodology) that the system's hydraulic capture zone is calculated and confirmed by field measurement to be at least as large as the zone described in the Approved Remediation Plan. Closing can be extended only upon Buyer and Company agreeing to an extension in writing and signed by both Buyer and Company. 2 of 20 Packet Pg. 398 D. The heading of Section 6.4 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.4 Interim Action Report, Remediation Plan and Work. E. Section 6.4.1 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.4.1 Company shall draft one or more plans for remediation of Contamination on the Property that collectively shall contain (and specifically identify) a preferred alternative consistent with the clean up action plan and shall contain (and specifically identify) two types of work. The first type of work is the Capital Remediation Work, which includes, but is not limited to, capital work for design and construction of the remedy, including soil excavation and treatment, and establishment of a groundwater monitoring network, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit F, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. If required by DOE, the Capital Remediation Work also shall include the design, construction, and start-up of a groundwater treatment system. The second type of work is Monitoring Work, which consists of all remedial work performed after completion of the Capital Remediation Work. Monitoring Work includes, but is not limited to, the subsequent operation of the groundwater treatment system, if construction is required by DOE, and performance of compliance groundwater monitoring, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit G, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The Capital Remediation Work will be proposed to DOE in a Proposed Interim Action Report. After completing the work required pursuant to the Approved Interim Action Report, Company will submit to DOE a Proposed Remediation Plan. The Proposed Remediation Plan will include Monitoring Work. If required by DOE, it also may include additional Capital Remediation Work. If the Proposed Remediation Plan proposes a groundwater treatment system, then the Plan will include (i) a requirement that, following construction of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written statement confirming that the treatment system was constructed in accordance with DOE -approved plans and specifications; (ii) a proposed hydraulic capture zone; (iii) a proposed methodology for calculating and performing confirming field measurements of the hydraulic capture zone of the treatment system following start-up; (iv) a requirement that, following start-up of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written report concluding (based on the approved methodology) that the treatment system's hydraulic capture zone is calculated and confirmed by field measurement to be at least as large as the zone described in the Approved Remediation Plan; and (v) a requirement that following start-up of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written report documenting that the treated groundwater meets permitted discharge requirements. As approved by DOE, these documents shall be referred to as the "Approved Interim Action Report" and the "Approved Remediation Plan," respectively. 3 of 20 Packet Pg. 399 8.3.e F. Section 6.4.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.4.2 Buyer shall be given an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Interim Action Report and the Proposed Remediation Plan before Company submits either document to DOE and the public for approval and shall be given an opportunity to comment on proposed Restrictive Covenants as they are proposed and negotiated by Company and/or DOE. Buyer shall submit such comments to Company within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Proposed Interim Action Report, Proposed Remediation Plan, or Restrictive Covenants, as applicable. Company shall give due consideration to such comments prior to making further submittals to DOE. Company shall reasonably pursue negotiation of the Proposed Interim Action Report, Proposed Remediation Plan, and Restrictive Covenants. In the event Company fails to negotiate an Approved Remediation Plan, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Upon such termination, Company shall return the Initial Earnest Money to Buyer and the Escrow Holder shall disburse any remaining funds then held in Escrow to Buyer. G. Section 6.4.3 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.4.3 Upon receipt of DOE's approval of the Proposed Interim Action Report and again upon receipt of DOE's approval of the Proposed Remediation Plan, Company shall promptly transmit a copy to Buyer and shall thereafter provide Buyer with copies of any correspondence with DOE relating to performance under, enforcement of or amendment of the Approved Interim Action Report or of the Approved Remediation Plan. Company further agrees to provide Buyer with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on any proposed changes to the Approved Interim Action Report or to the Approved Remediation Plan. Buyer shall submit such comments to Company within twenty (20) days of receipt of the proposed amendment. Company shall give due consideration to such comments prior to making further submittals to or agreements with DOE. H. Section 6.5 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.5 Schedule of Performance. Company shall perform the Capital Remediation Work according to the schedule approved by DOE in the Approved Interim Action Report and, if applicable, in the Approved Remediation Plan (as such may be amended from time to time by the Company with Buyer comments as provided in Section 6.4.3, and DOE approval). I. The heading of Section 6.6 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.6 Commencement of Capital Remediation Work. 4 of 20 Packet Pg. 400 8.3.e J. Section 6.6.1 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.6.1 Company shall commence Capital Remediation Work as required by the Approved Interim Action Report within a reasonable time after obtaining the Interim Action Remediation Bid Price and in any event in accord with the schedule approved by DOE as set forth in the Approved Interim Action Report. K. Section 6.6.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.6.2 Buyer shall commence Monitoring Work upon the Close of Escrow. L. The heading of Section 6.8.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.8.2 Payment and Performance Bond(s). M. Section 6.8.2.1 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.8.2.1 Prior to commencing any Capital Remediation Work required by the Approved Interim Action Report, Company shall secure a payment and performance bond in an amount equal to or more than the Interim Action Remediation Bid Price established pursuant to Section 6.10 ("Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond"). Company shall provide to Buyer a copy of the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond within ten (10) days of receipt from surety. The surety shall release the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond when the Company has received confirmation from DOE that the Capital Remediation Work required by the Approved Interim Action Report is complete and there are no outstanding claims against the Bond. N. Section 6.8.2.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.8.2.2 The Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond shall: 6.8.2.2.1 Be on a Company -procured form reasonably acceptable to Buyer, 6.8.2.2.2 Be signed by a surety (or sureties) that: (i) Is registered with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner; and (ii) Appears on the current Authorized Insurance List in the State of Washington published by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. 6.8.2.2.3 Be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Capital Remediation Work required by DOE by the Company or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or lower level tier subcontractors of Company within the schedule approved by 5 of 20 Packet Pg. 401 8.3.e DOE in the Approved Interim Action Report (as may be amended from time to time by DOE); and 6.8.2.2.4 Guaranty that the surety shall arrange for the proper completion of the Capital Remediation Work required by DOE if Company fails to properly perform and/or complete the Capital Remediation Work required by DOE; and 6.8.2.2.5 Guaranty that the surety shall indemnify, defend, and protect Buyer against any claim of direct or indirect loss resulting from the failure of the Company (or the contractors, subcontractors, or lower tier subcontractors of the Company) to pay all laborers, mechanics, contractors, subcontractors, lower tier subcontractors, materialperson, or any other person who provides supplies or provisions for carrying out the Capital Remediation Work required by DOE. O. Section 6.8.2.3 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.8.2.3 Buyer may require said sureties or surety companies on the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond to appear and qualify themselves as provided above. If the surety or sureties thereafter cease to qualify, Buyer may, upon written demand, require Company to furnish additional surety to cover any remaining Capital Remediation Work required by DOE. Until the added surety is furnished, disbursements from Escrow by the Escrow Holder, as provided in Section 3.3.2.2.3, shall cease. P. A new Section 6.8.2.4 is added to the Purchase Agreement as follows: 6.8.2.4 In the event that additional Capital Remediation Work, in addition to that presented in the Approved Interim Action Report, is required by DOE, Company shall secure a payment and performance bond in an amount equal to or more than the Final Cleanup Action Remediation Bid Price established pursuant to Section 6.10 ("Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond"). Prior to commencing any such Capital Remediation Work, Company shall provide to Buyer a copy of the Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond within ten (10) days of receipt from surety. The surety shall release the Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond when the Company has received confirmation from DOE that all required Capital Remediation Work is complete and there are no outstanding claims against the Bond. Q. A new Section 6.8.2.5 is added to the Purchase Agreement as follows: 6.8.2.5 If a Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond is required pursuant to Section 6.8.2.4, it shall meet each of the requirements applicable to the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond, as set forth in Section 6.8.2.2. In addition, the provisions of Section 6.8.2.3 shall apply to the Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond. Provided, however, that the phrase "Approved Remediation Plan" shall be substituted for the phrase "Approved Interim Action Report," and the phrase "Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond" shall be substituted for the phrase "Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond" each time such phrases appear in those sections. 6 of 20 Packet Pg. 402 8.3.e R. Section 6.9 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.9 Payment for and Performance of Monitoring Work. Buyer shall be solely responsible to perform Monitoring Work. With respect to Monitoring Work, Company will pay Buyer out of Escrow, within three (3) business days after Buyer's making the deposit specified in Section 3.3.2.1, the sum of Eight Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($872,500.00) ("O&M Payment"). Buyer agrees to accept the O&M Payment as full and complete payment for any Monitoring Work. If the actual cost of the Monitoring Work is less than the O&M Payment, Buyer shall retain the difference; if the actual cost of the Monitoring Work is greater than the O&M Payment, Buyer shall pay for the difference. S. Section 6.10 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.10 Remediation Bid Price(s). Upon receipt of the Approved Interim Action Report and within the schedule of performance as set forth therein, Company shall, in its discretion, negotiate or bid the Capital Remediation Work required therein with a third party or parties selected by Company. The final agreed price for the Capital Remediation Work resulting from such negotiations or bids (which price must be satisfactory to Company in its discretion) is referred to herein as the "Interim Action Remediation Bid Price." If Capital Remediation Work, in addition to that presented in the Approved Interim Action Report, is required by DOE, then Company shall, in its discretion, negotiate or bid the additional Capital Remediation Work required therein with a third party or parties selected by Company within the schedule of performance as set forth within the Approved Remediation Plan. The final agreed price for the Capital Remediation Work resulting from such negotiations or bids (which price must be satisfactory to Company in its discretion) is referred to herein as the "Final Cleanup Action Remediation Bid Price." T. Section 6.13.2.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.13.2.2 The parties recognize that the Approved Interim Action Report will include elements that Company would normally not include in its remediation plan for the Property and, accordingly, from and after submission of the Proposed Interim Action Report to DOE, the minimum amount of liquidated damages shall be the difference between the reasonably estimated cost of the Capital Remediation Work, as presented in the Approved Interim Action Report (or the Proposed Interim Action Report, if the Approved Interim Action Report has not been issued) and the amount of the reasonably estimated cost of the clean up of the Property, which is reasonably believed DOE would have approved prior to the submission of the Proposed Interim Action Report, to a maximum amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 (S600.000.00) (such difference being referred to as the "Enhanced Remediation Compensation"). U. Section 6.13.2.3 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.13.2.3 To the extent Company has received and retains the Initial Earnest Money and/or the Additional Earnest Money and/or payments for Capital Remediation Work, such sums shall be credited against the Enhanced Remediation Compensation, and it is therefore the expectation of the parties that upon payment of the Additional Earnest Money, any sums due 7of20 Packet Pg. 403 8.3.e for the Enhanced Remediation Compensation will be fully covered. The liquidated damages described above shall constitute the sole and exclusive remedy of Company on account of termination of the Agreement based on the default by Buyer from and after Company submits the Proposed Interim Action Report to DOE. Upon such termination of this Agreement, the Escrow Holder shall disburse to Company from Escrow the Enhanced Remediation Compensation, to the extent any amount remains owing, disburse to Buyer any remaining funds then held in Escrow, and return the Deed to Company. V. Section 6.14.2 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.14.2 Obtain specific performance through completion of the Capital Remediation Work under the Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond, and recording the Deed. 6.14.3 Obtain specific performance through completion of the Capital Remediation Work under the Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond, and recording the Deed. W. Section 6.16 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 6.16 Notice and Op ortunity to Cure. If either party believes the other to be in default hereunder, it shall deliver to the defaulting party written notice of the default. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days to cure the default; provided that if the default is of such a nature that the cure cannot with diligence be completed within such time period and the defaulting party has commenced meaningful steps to cure promptly after receiving the default notice, the defaulting party shall have such additional period of time as is reasonably necessary to effect cure using reasonable best efforts to complete such cure as expeditiously as practical, provided further that no such cure period shall extend the dates under the schedule of performance as set forth in the Approved Interim Action Report or, if DOE requires Capital Remediation Work in addition to that required by the Approved Interim Action Report, in the Approved Remediation Plan. X. Section 8.1.1 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 8.1.1 Prior Use /Compan Responsibility for Capital Remediation Work. Buyer acknowledges (i) that the Property was once used for the storage and handling of fuel hydrocarbons, and that fuel hydrocarbons were transported across the Property and the Adjacent Properties, identified in Exhibit I, (ii) that Contamination may be present on the Property as the result of the transportation and handling of fuel hydrocarbons; (iii) that there exists no "no further action" letter or equivalent from the applicable Agency for any of the Property. that no such letters may ever be issued in connection with the Property, that Company will complete the Capital Remediation Work as set forth in the Approved Interim Action Report and, if required, in the Approved Remediation Plan, but will not otherwise take any action to obtain any such "no further action" letters for the Property, and that Buyer will be responsible for any monitoring and/or remediation of Contamination required after the Capital Remediation Work is complete; 8 of 20 Packet Pg. 404 8.3.e and (iv) Buyer has had an extensive oportunity to otherwise perform and has performed environmental due diligence on the Property. Buyer hereby agrees and stipulates that written acknowledgement by DOE that Company has completed the Capital Remediation Work as defined in Exhibit F, and as set forth in the Approved Interim Action Report and the Approved Remediation Plan (if DOE requires additional Capital Remediation Work in addition to that described in the approved Interim Action Report), shall be deemed conclusive evidence that Company has satisfied its obligation to perform the Capital Remediation Work. In addition, if DOE requires construction of a groundwater treatment system, then Discharge Monitoring Reports that Company submits to DOE must demonstrate that discharge from the groundwater treatment system meets effluent limits established in the discharge permit. Company shall not construct a groundwater treatment system unless and until such system is required by DOE to meet DOE -approved cleanup levels for groundwater to be achieved within 20 years as set forth more fully in Exhibit F. Company expressly reserves any and all appellate rights under applicable law. Y. Section 10.5 of the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: 10.5 Notices. Any notices, requests, approvals or elections hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when (a) personally served, or (b) three (3) days after mailing by certified or registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (c) one (1) day after deposit with a national overnight courier for next -day delivery, addressed to the parties as follows; Provided, the "copies" noted below are courtesy copies only and shall not constitute notice for purposes of this Section: Attn: Tim McGuigan Director of Legal Services & Contracts 2901 Third Avenue Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3014 Telephone: (206) 515-3601 with a copy to: Attn: Russ East Director, Terminal Engineering 2901 Third Avenue Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3014 Telephone: (206) 515-3701 9 of 20 Packet Pg. 405 8.3.e with a copy to: Attn: Patricia K. Nightingale, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General PO Box 40113 Olympia, WA 98504-0113 Telephone: (360) 753-6129 and addressed to Company as follows: Unocal/Chevron Environmental Management Company P.O. Box 399 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Mark Brearley Facsimile: (425) 640-7601 Telephone: (425) 640-7610 with a copy to: Richard F. Chatfield -Taylor Senior Counsel Law Department Environmental Practice Group Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, Room T3234 San Ramon, CA 94583-2324 Facsimile: (925) 842-2011 Telephone: (925) 842-5017 with a copy to: Chevron Environmental Management Company C/o President Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, Room T3234 San Ramon, CA 94583-2324 Facsimile: (925) 842-0808 Telephone: (925) 842-5200 10 of 20 Packet Pg. 406 8.3.e with a copy to: Cascadia Law Group PLLC 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 320 Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Rodney L. Brown, Jr. Facsimile: (206) 292-6300 Telephone: (206) 292-2605 and addressed to ESCROW HOLDER as follows: Chicago Title Company 3030 Hoyt Avenue Everett, WA 98201 Telephone: (425) 259-8205 Z. Exhibit A of the Purchase Agreement is modified by revising or deleting existing terms, and adding new terms, to read as follows. All terms in Exhibit A that are not set forth below remain unchanged. Exhibit A APPROVED INTERIM ACTION REPORT. The term "Approved Interim Action Report" shall mean the interim action plan for Capital Remediation Work proposed by Company, as approved by DOE. APPROVED REMEDIATION PLAN. The term "Approved Remediation Plan" shall mean the clean up action plan for the Property proposed by Company, as approved by DOE. The Approved Remediation Plan shall include the Monitoring Work and shall specify cleanup standards for all affected environmental media. The Approved Remediation Plan also may include Capital Remediation Work, in addition to that required under the Approved Interim Action Report. CAPITAL REMEDIATION WORK. The term "Capital Remediation Work" shall mean remediation activities presented in the Approved Interim Action Report. DOE may require additional Capital Remediation Work under the Approved Remediation Plan. Such work includes the capital work for design and construction of the remedy, including soil excavation and treatment and establishment of a groundwater monitoring network, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit F to the Agreement. If required by DOE_ the Capital Remediation Work also will include construction of a groundwater treatment system- but not operation or maintenance of such system, except as required to demonstrate to DOE that (1) the system's hydraulic capture zone is calculated and confirmed by field measurement to be at least as large as the zone described in the Approved Remediation Plan, and (2) discharge from the treatment system meets effluent limits established in the discharge permit, as shown by Discharge Monitoring Reports prepared by Company and submitted to DOE. 11 of 20 Packet Pg. 407 8.3.e ENHANCED REMEDIATION COMPENSATION. The term "Enhanced Remediation Compensation" shall mean that element of liquidated damages, as provided in Section 6.13.2 of the Agreement, that the Company is entitled to in the event Company terminates the Agreement for a Buyer default after Company has submitted the Proposed Interim Action Report to DOE. FINAL CLEANUP ACTION PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND. The term "Final Cleanup Action Payment and Performance Bond" shall mean the Bond obtained in accordance with Section 6.8.2 by Company, or its contractor that will perform the additional Capital Remediation Work, if any, required under the Approved Remediation Plan, in the amount equal to or more than the Final Cleanup Action Remediation Bid Price. FINAL CLEANUP ACTION REMEDIATION BID PRICE. The term "Final Cleanup Action Remediation Bid Price" shall mean the price for the additional Capital Remediation Work, if any, resulting from the Company's negotiations or bid of such work, as set forth in the Approved Remediation Plan. INTERIM ACTION PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND. The term "Interim Action Payment and Performance Bond" shall mean the Bond obtained in accordance with Section 6.8.2 by Company, or its contractor that will perform the Capital Remediation Work required under the Approved Interim Action Report, in the amount equal to or more than the Interim Action Remediation Bid Price. INTERIM ACTION REMEDIATION BID PRICE. The term "Interim Action Remediation Bid Price" shall mean the price for the Capital Remediation Work resulting from the Company's negotiations or bid of such work as set forth in the Approved Interim Action Report. MONITORING WORK. The term "Monitoring Work" shall mean the remediation activities required under the Approved Remediation Plan for subsequent operation of the groundwater treatment system, if required by DOE, and performance of compliance monitoring, the details of which are set forth in Exhibit G to the Agreement. PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND. The term "Payment and Performance Bond" is deleted. PROGRESS REPORTS. The term "Progress Reports" shall mean the reports Company is required to submit to DOE on the activities under the Approved Interim Action Report. If DOE requires Capital Remediation Work in addition to that presented in the Approved Interim Action Reporn 'Progress Reports" also shall mean the reports Company is required to submit to DOE on the activities under the Approved Remediation Plan. 12 of 20 Packet Pg. 408 8.3.e PROPOSED INTERIM ACTION REPORT. The term "Proposed Interim Action Report" shall mean the report Company submits to DOE for approval that proposes Capital Remediation Work. PROPOSED REMEDIATION PLAN. The term "Proposed Remediation Plan" shall mean the plan for the Monitoring Work and additional Capital Remediation Work, if any, proposed by Company and submitted to DOE for approval. If the Proposed Remediation Plan proposes a groundwater treatment system, then the Plan must include (i) a requirement that, following construction of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written statement confirming that the treatment system was constructed in accordance with DOE -approved plans and specifications; (ii) a proposed hydraulic capture zone; (iii) a proposed methodology for calculating and performing confirming field measurements of the hydraulic capture zone of the treatment system following start-up; (iv) a requirement that, following start-up of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written report concluding (based on the approved methodology) that the treatment system's hydraulic capture zone is calculated and confirmed by field measurement to be at least as large as the zone described in the Approved Remediation Plan; and (v) a requirement that following start-up of the groundwater treatment system, Company will prepare and submit to DOE a written report documenting that the treated groundwater meets permitted discharge requirements. REMEDIATION BID PRICE. The term "Remediation Bid Price" is deleted. REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY. The term "Revised Feasibility Study" is deleted. AA. Exhibit F to the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: Exhibit F CAPITAL REMEDIATION PLAN The Capital Remediation Plan is the capital portion of work approved by DOE as written in the Approved Interim Action Report. If DOE determines that additional Capital Remediation Work is required, portions of the Capital Remediation Plan also may be performed pursuant to the Approved Remediation Plan. The Capital Remediation Plan includes planning, permitting and execution of soil, sediment and groundwater cleanup as specified in the Approved Interim Action Report and the Approved Remediation Plan. The Capital Remediation Plan excludes all Monitoring Work, as set forth in Exhibit G, including groundwater monitoring and operation (except to demonstrate that (1) the system's hydraulic capture zone is calculated and confirmed by field measurement to be at least as large as the zone described in the Approved Remediation Plan, and (2) discharge from the treatment system meets effluent limits established in the discharge permit, as shown by Discharge Monitoring Reports prepared by Company and submitted to DOE), and maintenance of the groundwater treatment system, if required. 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 409 8.3.e The capital elements of the interim action in the Lower Yard parcel include all labor, materials, and equipment required to remove and/or treat free product and soil containing total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations greater than a cleanup level of 2,975 mg/kg. The interim action will not include a system designed to treat impacted groundwater. However, if DOE subsequently requires groundwater treatment to meet DOE -approved cleanup levels in a reasonable timeframe (within 20 years), then all labor, materials, and equipment to install and start up a groundwater treatment system will also be considered capital elements of the remedial action. The description of capital elements of the remedial action provided here does not in any way limit Company's responsibility to meet DOE's requirements for the capital elements of the remedial action. Capital elements associated with soil remediation include, but are not necessarily limited to: • removal and recycling of remaining free product; • removal of impacted groundwater from the free product excavations; • removal and treatment of the upper 1 ft of sediment from approximately 200 linear feet of the Willow Creek streambed (see draft Feasibility Study); • replacement of the excavated Willow Creek sediment with sandy loam and necessary bank restoration activities for erosion control and habitat restoration; • excavation of soil that contains TPH concentrations greater than the 2,975 mg/kg cleanup level; • on -site or off -site treatment or off -site disposal of excavated soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg TPH in such a way that the impacted soil will be treated/disposed and the site restored to development -ready conditions within one (1) year of commencing the remedial action; • verification that the extent of contamination does not leave soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg by collecting and analyzing excavation bottom (unless groundwater is present in excavation) and sidewall soil samples; • management of clean overburden soil to prevent cross -contamination by soil with concentrations above 2,975 mg/kg TPH; • removal and disposal of soil containing arsenic concentrations greater than 20 mg/kg, • backfill of excavated areas with appropriate soil types in order to achieve 90% relative compaction; • replacement of any groundwater monitoring wells abandoned or damaged during soil excavation activities and installation of any additional wells that DOE would require for use in a groundwater monitoring network; and • sufficient documentation and interaction with DOE to lead to a determination by DOE that the soil remediation meets DOE's requirements. 14 of 20 Packet Pg. 410 8.3.e Capital elements associated with installation and start up of the groundwater remediation system (if required by DOE) include, but are not necessarily limited to: • construction of a trench intercept system to recover contaminated groundwater such that groundwater with chemical concentrations exceeding DOE -approved cleanup levels does not leave the Lower Yard parcel; • design of an onsite groundwater treatment system to meet DOE -approved discharge standards; • coordination with Buyer to confirm that the location of the groundwater treatment system will not interfere with development plans; • startup monitoring of that system to confirm that its operation meets the design objectives; and • sufficient documentation and interaction with DOE to lead to a determination by DOE that Company met the requirements of the Approved Remediation Plan for Capital Remediation Work. The parties agree that in the pursuit of achieving performance -based remediation criteria including those set forth herein, the practicability of achieving these criteria may be limited to some degree by conditions encountered during field activities. As a hypothetical example, if subsurface soil impacts extend beneath a permanent building, such soil may be left in place if its excavation would compromise the structural integrity of the building. If achievement of the remediation criteria is determined by Company and DOE to be impracticable based on actual field conditions, Buyer agrees that Company may obtain approval from DOE on a suitable alternative approach to meet the goals of the remedial action. Buyer agrees that if remediation criteria will not be met as set forth herein, Company will communicate the recommended alternative approach to the Washington State Department of Transportation through the Washington State Ferries in a timely fashion. BB. Exhibit G to the Purchase Agreement is modified to read as follows: Exhibit G MONITORING WORK The -Monitoring Work consists of the monitoring portion of work approved by DOE as written in the Approved Remediation Plan, including: (i) operation and maintenance of the groundwater recovery and treatment system (if required by DOE); (ii) and compliance groundwater monitoring as specified in the Approved Remediation Plan; and (iii) a compliance monitoring plan to be developed with DOE. The Monitoring Work excludes all Capital Remediation Work, as set forth in Exhibit F. 15 of 20 Packet Pg. 411 8.3.e The principal elements of Monitoring Work include: • removal and recycling of any recoverable free product, if necessary; • pumping, treatment and discharge of groundwater as necessary to maintain sufficient hydrologic capture under an approved groundwater discharge permit, if required; • optimizing operation of the groundwater recovery and treatment system on a regular basis, if required; • maintaining the groundwater recovery and treatment system including replacement of parts and equipment, as necessary; • collecting and analyzing compliance groundwater samples in accordance with the methods and schedule described in the compliance monitoring plan; and • sufficient documentation and interaction with DOE to lead to a determination by DOE that the operation and maintenance of the groundwater recovery and treatment system, if required, and compliance groundwater monitoring meets DOE's requirements. CC. Except as specifically provided herein, the Purchase Agreement is and remains in full force and effect. [Signature Blocks Appear on Next Page] 16 of 20 Packet Pg. 412 8.3.e IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions to be effective as of the date first above written. "Company": UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation By: J MES J. E Its: Integration Manager "Buyer": STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRAtiSPORTATION By: W. MICHAEL ANDERSON Its: Executive Director Washington State Ferries division By: GEIALD L. GALL GER Its: Director of Real Estate Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: �- PATRICIA K. NIGH INGALE Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 17 of 20 Packet Pg. 413 b 8.3.e STATE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this 112 y - A day of —�1 �i'� L , 2004 before me personally appeared W. Michael Anderson, to me known to be the duly appointed Executive Director of Washington State Ferries, and that he executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said State of Washington, Department of Transportation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth, and on oath states that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the a y- day of i�Y��r L , 200L. /-) /11„ c Q , (Signature) V lM 10, crrulGa4 (Print or type name) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Seg4YLe 1�/g My commission expires a - &1 - 0 9 18 of 20 Packet Pg. 414 8.3.e STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF THURSTON On this day of Aso L. , 20C)�, before me personally appeared Gerald L. Gallinger, to me known to be the duly appointed Director, Real Estate Services, and that he executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said State of Washington, Department of Transportation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth, and on oath states that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day of Apfzi L 20 C (c r , � �1 (Sign re) L( SA (Print or type name) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at -IH ek My commission expires 00 19 of 20 Packet Pg. 415 ,A 8.3.e CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OFZ} L, o,-n i' ,,4 ss COUNTY OF _Sa n K %5 06�5�Oo ) On this day of /%l f1 l/ , 20 -Q-4 before me personally appeared James J. Dean, to me known to be the Integration Manager of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged 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 was authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. • • •rn-QJS �., CNERYLA. CAMERON (Si ature) �t Cw nkslon # 1390536 FC� /� t'/� �� %� • L f¢I1'f r'�O!'1 oNfornia Son Uh Obtepo County Countyounty � (Print or type name) F*1WC4X=• Eq�resoec 1 �.2006 Notary Public in and for the State of residing at 6a✓) A u s 0b J s Po My commission expires 12//-2/per 20 of 20 Packet Pg. 416 8.3.f WSDOT/Edmonds MOU — Former UNOCAL Property OS/23/23 Todd Tatum, Director Community/Culture/Economic Development f Packet Pg. 417 8.3.f Recap • Council approved resolution asking the legislature to require WSDOT to give us first right of purchase (in Transportation Budget) • Council expressed desire to write letter • Council expressed concerns about upcoming Ecology review • Council expressed concerns about the impact on our bargaining position • Council expressed questions about the timing of MOU Packet Pg. 418 8.3.f First right of purchase • Does not guarantee our ownership • Does not require that we purchase • Signals our intent • Does not give us a process or model to follow to get to our own decisions about our own purchasing decisions • Does not talk about risk or post -purchase options Packet Pg. 419 8.3.f Ecology documents and decision -making • Governed by the Model Toxics Control Act • Upcoming documents: • Feasibility study • Cleanup action plan • Consent decree • SEPA determination of non -significance • MANY preceding documents which have led to these Packet Pg. 420 8.3.f Long term options discussed in previous meetings • Purchase property • Encourage transfer of property to another state agency • Other partners/non-profits who might want to transform and manage the property Packet Pg. 421 8.3.f Next steps • Sign the MOU • Use a portion of the dollars set aside for the property to hire a consultant/s to aid in the next steps of due diligence F Packet Pg. 422 8.3.f Recommendation Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU ()V F QJJ IV U f, Packet Pg. 423 Questions? F Packet Pg. 424 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Adopt ordinance to add compost procurement requirement in compliance with RCW 43.19A.150 Staff Lead: Oscar Anti Ilon Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History Washington State Legislature enacted House Bill 1799 requiring Cities and Counties with populations greater than 25,000, and with existing organics collection services, to adopt a compost procurement ordinance. Staff Recommendation Adopt Ordinance to amend City of Edmonds Code 7.80 to add a compost procurement requirement. Narrative House Bill 1799, codified in RCW 43.19A.150, requires cities to adopt a compost procurement ordinance. The proposed ordinance will provided the procurement policy requirement to implement RCW 43.19A.120. The ordinance amends Chapter 7.80 of the ECC, "Solid Waste Recycling' and includes new sections for Compost Procurement. The amended and included sections detail how compost products will be prioritized in planning, purchased from local and certified sources, and reported annually by Public Works to the Department of Ecology. Attachments: Compost Procurement Ordinance —Amend ECC 7.80 Packet Pg. 425 8.4.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 7.80 TO ADD A COMPOST PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 43.19A.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING THE EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature enacted House Bill 1799, now codified in RCW 43.19.150, which requires that cities and counties with populations greater than 25,000, and with existing organics collection services, shall adopt a compost procurement ordinance to implement RCW 43.19A.120; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has determined to adopt this ordinance in order to conform to the requirements of RCW 43.19A.150; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 7.80 of the ECC� entitled "Solid Waste Recycling is hereby amended commented [Al]: This is one idea of where the comp( procurement section can go. Other cities put it in a "Purck to include the following new section: chapter, but Edmonds does not appear to have one. It coup under the public works title 18. It is up to you where you'd 7.80.130 Compost Procurement A. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the definitions set forth in RCW 43.19A.010 shall apply, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. B. When planning city -funded projects or soliciting and reviewing bids for such projects, city departments shall consider whether compost products can be utilized in a city project. If compost products can be utilized, city departments shall require purchase of compost products for use in city projects, except as follows. The city is not required to use compost products i£ 1. Compost products are not available within a reasonable time or distance from the proj ect; Packet Pg. 426 8.4.a 2. Compost products that are available do not comply with existing purchasing standards; 3. Compost products that are available do not comply with federal, state or local health, quality and safety standards; or 4. Compost purchase prices are not reasonable or competitive. C. City departments shall plan for the use of compost in any of the following categories that are applicable to their operations and project types: 1. Landscaping projects; 2. Construction and postconstruction soil amendments; 3. Applications to prevent erosion, filter stormwater runoff, promote vegetative growth, or improve the stability and longevity of roadways; and 4. Low -impact development and green infrastructure to filter pollutants or to keep water on -site, or both. D. City departments shall give priority to purchasing compost products from companies that: 1. Produce compost products locally; 0 O0 ti 2. Are certified by nationally recognized organization like the US Composting Council; U and W 3. Produce compost products that are derived from municipal solid waste compost programs and meet quality standards comparable to standards adopted by the department of Q transportation or adopted by rule by the department of ecology. I v c c� c E. City departments that use compost products shall report the following information to the public works department by each December 15: ,,; - commented [A2]: These subsections, about having thF O works department be the department that handles the repor C an 1. The volume and cost of compost purchased by the city department in that year; and option that isn't statutorily required. But several cities (Me Island, Federal Way, SeaTac) do it this for the d E 2. The source or sources of the compost purchased by the city department in that year. way sake of efficiency and accountability. It's up to you if you'd like th assigned to a different department, or if you'd like to ream M subsection E and just make subsection F more general "Th V shall submit a report...". O L F. The public works department is responsible for compiling and submitting a report to the a Washington State Department of Ecology by December 31, 2024, and each December 31 of rn O G. even -numbered years thereafter, with the following information: E O 1. The total tons of organic material diverted throughout the year; V c E t v .r Q Packet Pg. 427 8.4.a 2. The volume and cost of compost purchased throughout the year; and 3. The source or sources of the compost. G. The public works department shall develop strategies to inform residents about the value of compost and how compost is used in city operations. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MICHAEL NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 428 8.4.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 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 OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 7.80 TO ADD A COMPOST PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 43.19A.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING THE EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12023. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 429 8.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2023 Resolution Adopting the 2024 Budget Planning Calendar Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History During the Budget Retreat held in April for Council, Mayor and City Staff, emphasis was placed on a budget plan that includes early budget preparation and clear expectations of the process. Recommendation Review and adopt the 2024 Budget Planning Calendar. Narrative This proposed budget schedule allows Council, City Administration and Staff, and the public to develop and share clear budget priorities, provides a plan for foundational work in fiscal and budgetary preparation, and a focused schedule of budget discussions, deliberations and final budget adoption. Attachments: Resolution Budget Calendar Resolution Budget Calendar Exhibit 1 Proposed 2023 Budget Schedule Packet Pg. 430 8.5.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE PLANNING CALENDAR FOR THE 2024 BUDGET. WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 35A RCW, the City Council intends to adopt the 2024 Budget in its final form prior to the beginning of the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a budget retreat on April 28, 2023 and reviewed the benefits of a budget calendar to set expectations and approach for the budget process; and WHEREAS, the City Council has incorporated scheduling recommendations from City Staff and Administration. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of the 2023 Budget Schedule for the 2024 Budget. The events and dates specified by Exhibit A to this Resolution shall comprise the 2023 budget planning calendar for the 2024 budget. Section 2. The City Council shall retain its full authority to modify or amend the planning calendar as the Council deems necessary, and in a manner consistent with applicable law, adopted polices and standard practices. RESOLVED this day of May 2023. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON 1 Packet Pg. 431 8.5.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 2 Packet Pg. 432 8.5.b RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE PLANNING CALENDAR FOR THE 2024 BUDGET. WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 35A RCW, the City Council intends to adopt the 2024 Budget in its final form prior to the beginning of the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a budget retreat on April 28, 2023 and reviewed the benefits of a budget calendar to set expectations and approach for the budget process; and WHEREAS, the City Council has incorporated scheduling recommendations from City Staff and Administration. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of the 2023 Budget Schedule for the 2024 Budget. The events and dates specified by Exhibit A to this Resolution shall comprise the 2023 budget planning calendar for the 2024 budget. Section 2. The City Council shall retain its full authority to modify or amend the planning calendar as the Council deems necessary, and in a manner consistent with applicable law, adopted polices and standard practices. RESOLVED this day of May 2023. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON 1 Packet Pg. 433 8.5.b FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 2 Packet Pg. 434 8.5.c Exhibit A PROPOSED 2023 BUDGET SCHEDULE 2023 Planning Calendar for the 2024 Budget For planning purposes — subject to change Date Description Note April Budget Retreat — Council, Mayor and City Staff May Resolution of Budget Schedule for the 2024 Budget Council Meeting June Council hosting 3 outreach events to community on Budget Priorities Council -organized community events June Public Hearing on 2024 Budget Priorities 6/27 Council Work Meeting on Budget Priorities Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room July Resolution of Council 2024 Budget Priorities Council Meeting 7/11 Budget -Focused Committee Agenda: Department reviews of 2023 Budget, 2023 Decision Packages and Budget Amendments; outlook for remainder of 2023 Council Committee August Council requests a robust presentation of 2nd Quarter Financial Report, outlook for remainder of 2023 Finance @ Council Meeting September 2023 Salary Ordinance (Not required) Better if done before Mayor's budget message is presented. HR @ City Council Meeting September 2023 Non -Represented Salary & Benefits Resolution. Better if done before Mayor's budget message is presented. HR @ City Council Meeting September Presentation of CIP/CFP Proposed joint presentation to Council and Planning Board September Council discussion of CIP/CFP Council Meeting September Public Hearing — CIP/CFP Council Meeting October Adopt the 2023 CIP/CFP Council Meeting October Salary Commission Determination Packet Pg. 435 8.5.c Exhibit A Date Description Note 9/27 (Monday) Mayor's Message and Presentation of Preliminary Budget Mayor Presentation 10/3 Budget Orientation Council Meeting 10/10 Budget -Focused Committee Agenda: Department Operating Budget presentations/ discussion Council Committee 10/17 Department Operation Budget presentations/ discussion First Public Hearing on the 2024 Budget Council Meeting 10/19 (Thursday) Council Work Meeting — Department Operation Budget questions and discussion Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room 10/24 Department Operating Budget presentations/discussion Public Hearing — Revenue Public Hearing — Property Tax Council Meeting 10/30 (Monday) Council Decision Packages/ Amendments Due Council Work Meeting — Review Council DPs/Amendments Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room 10/31 51h Tuesday (no scheduled meeting) 11/6 (Monday) Second Public Hearing on the 2024 Budget Council Budget Review and Discussion Council Meeting 11/7 General Election No Meeting 11/14 (Cancel Council Committees) Council Budget Review and Discussion Council Special Meeting 11/16 (Thursday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/18 (Saturday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/20 (Monday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/21 Final Budget Review and Adoption of the 2024 Budget Council Meeting Packet Pg. 436