The URL can be used to link to this page

2015.01.27 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2015 6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(45 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss potential litigation per RCW42.30.110(1)(i) and to consider potential action. STUDY SESSION JANUARY 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7436 Approval of correction to approved City Council Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2015. B.AM-7437 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2015. C.AM-7435 Approval of claim checks #212553 through #212563 dated January 20, 2015 for $21,374.24 and claim checks #212564 through #212617 dated January 22, 2015 for 111,042.34. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61460 through #61470 for $476,624.22, benefit checks #61471 through #61479 and wire payments of $515,068.54 for the pay period January 1, 2015 through January 15, 2015. 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6.(15 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Packet Page 1 of 394 6.(15 Minutes) AM-7438 Authorization for Mayor to sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Senior Center 7.(30 Minutes) AM-7428 Presentation of Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka EDBID) Grants Program 8.(10 Minutes) AM-7429 Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project, and to Reduce the Flooding at Dayton St. and SR104. 9.(25 Minutes) AM-7434 Discussion of the Draft Land Use Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 10.(30 Minutes) AM-7439 Discussion of draft ordinances to consolidate and clarify animal regulations. 11.(10 Minutes) AM-7430 Presentation of a Sprint Master Use Agreement and Site Use Agreement for installation, operation and maintenance of their wireless equipment in the right of way. 12.(30 Minutes) AM-7431 Discussion and Potential Action Authorizing Mayor to sign proposed amendment(s) to the City of Edmonds and the Fire District 1's Fire and Emergency Services Interlocal Agreement. 13.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 14.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 15.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 16.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 394 AM-7436 4. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of correction to approved City Council Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2015. Recommendation Councilmember Bloom identified the following sentence on pg 16 of the 1/13/2015 City Council Meeting minutes for revision: "Code of ethic is a field of study; many professions are required to take code of ethic classes to maintain their licenses," and corrected to: "Ethics is a field of study and many professions are required to take ethics classes to maintain their licenses." Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the revised approved 1/13/2015 City Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Revision to 1/13/15 City Council approved minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/22/2015 10:38 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 10:57 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/22/2015 08:45 AM Final Approval Date: 01/22/2015 Packet Page 3 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 13, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Linda Coburn, Municipal Court Judge Mike Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(a) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, MaryAnn Hardie, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 6:59 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Deputy Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, MOVING ITEM 11 TO 7A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda. Packet Page 4 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212286 THROUGH #212410 DATED JANUARY 8, 2015 FOR $541,643.82 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM PHILIP CHRISTENSEN ($158.68) D. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR E. CONFIRMATION OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE LINDA COBURN Item A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2015 Councilmember Johnson requested the following correction be made to the minutes: • Page 4, second paragraph from the bottom, “Mr. Taraday offered to review the statute; he did not believe it would be appropriate because although the Council can adjourn to executive session to discuss the qualification of a candidate for appointment to a vacancy, but did not think it was appropriate in this circumstance.” COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. SWEARING IN OF NEWLY CONFIRMED MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE LINDA W. Y. COBURN The Honorable Judge Stephen Dwyer, Court of Appeals, administered the Oath of Office to Municipal Court Judge Linda W. Y. Coburn. Mayor Earling led the flag salute. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bruce Barstow spoke regarding Item 9, City Hall Exterior ATM Concession Agreement. If approved by the Council, the agreement requires payment for use of the property be made to the City at the first of month. As the payment is based on revenue from the prior month, he requested the agreement be changed to require payment the following month for the previous month. He referred to an existing agreement with Parks for another ATM that states the concessionaire shall pay the City on or before the 15th of each month during the term of this agreement the amount of 10% of the receipts for the previous month. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed his concern with the dimensions of the pathway or as he calls it, large sidewalk, on Sunset Avenue. He relayed his understanding that the dimensions for a combined pathway are 10 to 15 feet. Special features are required for an 8-foot pathway such as proper signage which has not been installed on Sunset. He recommended eliminating the trial program on Sunset Avenue and starting over and replacing the bike lane on the east side which worked well in the past. He acknowledged bicyclists leaving the ferry traveling north cannot make a left turn on Sunset and will use 3rd Avenue instead. Next, he expressed concern with the as yet unsettled $1.6 million bill from Fire District 1. He requested the Council consider reestablishing its own fire department which would provide authority over the budget and management of the department. Fire District 1 operates on its own similar to the SnoIsle Library District and the City has no oversight. Packet Page 5 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 3 Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, explained the $1.6 million Fire District 1 bill represents a 3.47% increase per year since the contract began in 2010. Cost increases in the prior 4 years were well over that amount, approximately 5.5%. He summarized there is no question the City saves money with the Fire District 1 contract and anyone who says otherwise does not have the facts. 7. GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES PROGRAM Sara Maxanna, Principal Planner, Growth Management Department, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), explained Growing Transit Communities (GTC) Program was born out of a desire to address key challenges to implementing Vision 2040, and the desire to accommodate the tremendous amount of population growth that the region is expecting in the next 30 years in designated centers and particularly in areas that have regional investments in high capacity transit. She described the GTC Program that was funded via a HUD Sustainable Communities Grant: • $5 Million, 3 Year effort • Corridor Action strategies o Growth near transit o Housing affordability o Access to opportunity • Regional Equity Network o Regional consortium, local grants • Affordable housing o Regulatory and financial tools • Demonstration Projects She reviewed components of the Implementation Framework • The Pledge: Regional Compact o Problem statement o Vision statement o Goals: desired outcomes o Ongoing regional collaboration o Consider toolkit of strategies o Regional Goals  Attract more of the region’s residential and employment growth to high capacity transit communities  Provide housing choices affordable to a full range of income near high capacity transit  Increase access to opportunity for existing and future residents of transit communities o The 40 compact signatories (as of January 2015) include:  15 local jurisdictions  9 other public agencies/institutions  16 non-governmental organizations • The Playbook: Toolkit and Typology o Toolkit of Strategies and Actions  Foundation strategies  Attract growth  Housing choices  Access to opportunity o People + Place Implementation Typology  74 study areas  8 implementation approaches Packet Page 6 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 4 - Protect and Grow - Expand Housing Choices - Improve Access - Transform and Diversify - Stimulate Demand - Build Urban Places - Enhance Community - Preserve and Connect • The Plans: Partner Status Reports o Local approaches to implementation o Regional TOD Advisory Committee  Committee purpose: Advance the GTC Strategy - Provide guidance to PSRC and other partners - Build coalitions across the region - Generate support at regional, state and federal levels  Committee Work Program - 2014: Guidance for local comprehensive planning - 2014: Recommended state legislative priorities - 2015: Guidance on PSRC policy framework for the transportation funding - 2015: Guidance on designation of subregional/countywide centers - 2015: Guidance on outreach events and technical assistance Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any designated centers in Edmonds. Ms. Maxanna answered no, Edmonds is designated in the regional geography of vision 2040 as a larger city so there are some growth targets but Edmonds does not have a regionally designated growth center or manufacturing/industrial center. Councilmember Petso asked if there were any areas in Edmonds that are served by high capacity transit. Ms. Maxanna responded Edmonds has the Swift BRT on the Highway 99 corridor with at least one station in Edmond, the Sounder station and the ferry terminal. Whether those are considered high capacity transit depends on the definition of high capacity transit. PSRC is considering how to define high capacity transit, whether it is frequency, number of people transported. The GTC process recognized although the focus was primarily on the future light rail corridors in the region, light rail is not the only meaningful mode of public transportation in the region; there are streetcars, commuter rail, ferry terminals, BRT in two counties, and they are all meaningful at the local and regional level. Councilmember Petso supported making that distinction with the ferry terminal; if it is viewed as an appendage to the state highway system, it is not transit, but a way to move cars. She expressed interest in learning the numbers of people using the ferry as a means of transit prior to declaring it a high capacity transit system. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered regardless of the ferry’s status, Edmonds has high capacity transit such as BRT and the Sounder station. She clarified this advisory committee provides a means of coordinating with other jurisdictions and transit agencies about the needs for access, what can be done to make communities more walkable, make connections, and make coordination between the transit modes work better. There are no requirements for cities and counties to participate in the process but it is a way to share ideas, look at different opportunities and to think holistically about equity so it is not just about a certain group of riders such as commuters but also people who need to use transit in their everyday lives. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to strategies for affordable housing, commenting the majority of Edmonds is built out. She inquired about language regarding implementing a TOD property acquisition fund. Ms. Maxanna answered many peer regions have developed TOD or property acquisition funds. The intent is a revolving loan program that can be used to help secure properties before transit is built and Packet Page 7 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 5 prices increase. A subcommittee looked at capital in peer programs in Denver, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other jurisdictions and has a suite of recommendations for creating a similar program in this region. Via A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), King County, Seattle and several eastside cities pledge commitments to such a fund and there is discussion at the State level regarding possible revenue sources for matching funds as well as Snohomish and Pierce County participating in that fund. Such a program would be managed by an equity manager. There would need to be a threshold commitment first. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Portland has a small business lending program that helps stimulate business. Ms. Maxanna advised offered to forward the business management plan as well as other materials that have been developed. Councilmember Bloom referred to the two areas identified for affordable housing in Edmonds, commenting Highway 99 seems appropriate but near the Sounder station does not due to the cost of property in that area. She asked whether the goal was to focus on areas that are more reasonable to develop cooperative relationships with funding partners to create affordable housing. Ms. Maxanna answered the goal at the regional level is to help facilitate what the local level wants. In jurisdictions that have multiple station areas, the vision for some may be for more growth, opportunity to leverage the investment and partner with affordable housing providers and the vision for other station areas may be to remain singe family. There is nothing in this effort that designates station areas; this is only partnering and supporting the local jurisdiction’s vision for the community. For example, if Edmonds envisions the Highway 99 corridor as an opportunity to provide affordable housing, this program could assist by identifying what other jurisdictions are doing to achieve that as well as provide meaningful tools and ways to partner and promote more tools at the State level. Councilmember Bloom referred to pedestrian/emergency vehicle access over the railroad tracks to the waterfront and asked whether there would be opportunity to partnering on that to provide increased walkability at the Sounder station. Ms. Maxanna answered GTC partners primarily at a higher policy development level or tool implementation to support broader goals within a subarea or jurisdiction. Ms. Hope responded it depends, the idea is more walkability in options, but the focus is the community vision so there could be different ways to partner. PSRC is also instrumental in providing funds; PSRC distributes federal funds in accordance with a process. She summarized Councilmember Bloom’s potential project would not be a specific GTC agenda item but possibly could fit in the bigger picture. Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Maxanna to comment on coordination between the local Comprehensive Plan and the work being doing at PSRC. Ms. Maxanna answered PSRC has a standing plan review program that reviews all Comprehensive Plans pursuant to State statute and certifies the Transportation Element and transportation-related components of Comprehensive Plans. GTC staff is working closely with plan review staff including reviewing Comprehensive Plans of jurisdictions with high capacity transit. GTC has not created new mandates or requirements in the plans but as draft plans are reviewed, jurisdictions with high capacity transit and/or jurisdictions that have signed onto the GTC compact are asked to identify station areas in their communities. PSRC is also encouraging those cities to establish goals for the station areas or a process for establishing goals. The third component is to identify actions to achieve those goals. She emphasized this is all advisory; many jurisdictions have accomplished the first steps. Councilmember Petso inquired about the link with the Comprehensive Plan, assuming Highway 99 will always support transit in some form. The question of whether the waterfront area will support high capacity transit is often in debate because of the situation with Sounder such as landslides as well as the economics that do not work. Ms. Maxanna agreed there may be different visions for those areas of the City. It is completely up to the local jurisdiction to identify what they envision in each area. Packet Page 8 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 6 Councilmember Bloom asked the next step. Ms. Hope answered it would be providing information to the Council to decide whether to participate via signing the compact. The compact is good faith agreement. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed joining the compact would give Edmonds a voice at the table which Edmonds currently does not have. Ms. Maxanna agreed, noting the committee meets quarterly and provides advice and recommendations to the Growth Management Policy Board that influence regional policy. Mayor Earling commented Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Everett, Snohomish County and Shoreline are parties to the compact. He was hopeful the Council would be interested in signing the compact. 11. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10.16 CEMETERY BOARD Melissa Johnson, past Cemetery Board Chair and Vice Chair this year, and Jerry Janacek, incoming Cemetery Board Chair, introduced themselves. Parks & Recreation Director Hite explained the Parks Department has been working with the Cemetery Board on revisions to the Edmonds City Code related to the Cemetery Board. The Board has experienced difficulty maintaining seven members and two alternates. There are currently six members and efforts will continue to recruit a seventh member. Without seven members and two alternates, the Board is not in compliance with the code. The Cemetery Board does not see a need for the alternate positions. She reviewed the proposed revisions: • Change the board to up to seven member and eliminate the two alternates • Eliminate reference to alternates • Add language regarding officers, meeting and quorum that mirrors other boards/commissions • Powers of board – revised to reflect current function of the board • Annual report Ms. Hite advised the 2014 and 2015 budgets included a subsidy for the cemetery; the year ended positively with the subsidy. The cemetery has 8,000 grave sites and 2,000 yet to be sold; 250 of the 680 niches have been sold, leaving 430. Parks works with the Cemetery Board on price comparisons and adjusts prices as needed; a major overall of the pricing structure was implemented last year. The City’s capital project budget includes $100,000 in 2016 for mapping. She noted the cemetery is currently not mapped at all; it is all in Sexton Cliff Edwards’ head. Mapping will make it easy to identify plots. Board Member Janacek said people often ask why anyone would want to be on Cemetery Board. His great grandfather, Thomas White, donated the property where the Edmonds Cemetery is located and he has many relatives buried there. The issue during the past year has been having a quorum. Two new members have been recruited to bring the board to six. The proposed changes will bring the board’s practices in compliance with the City’s code. Councilmember Mesaros observed the code requires a majority for a quorum. Ms. Hite advised with six or seven members, a majority is four. Councilmember Petso observed the code states in 10.16.020 members of the Cemetery Board may be removed by the Mayor with approval of City Council after a public hearing before the City Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, etc. Ms. Hite advised that language mirrors most other boards and commissions. Councilmember Petso referred to 10.16.060, Funds for improvement and maintenance Packet Page 9 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 7 of the cemetery, relaying concern with a possibly inconsistency between the code, the budget and the resolutions that started the two funds related to the cemetery. She suggested Ms. Hite review that to ensure practices are consistent. Mr. Hite agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Hubbard Family Trust provided funds that are used for maintenance. Ms. Hite said those funds have not been depleted. Councilmember Buckshnis was satisfied with scheduling the proposed changes on a future Consent Agenda. Councilmember Johnson thanked Ms. Johnson and Mr. Janacek for their service and Mr. Janacek’s family for donating the land. She expressed appreciation for the Walk Back in Time and the Memorial Day Service. It was the consensus for the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda week. Ms. Hite will do the requested research and if there are any inconsistencies that need to be addressed in 10.16.060, she will email the Council the changes that will be reflected in the document. 8. REVIEW OF SHAW LANE FINAL PLAT AT 8620 218TH ST. SW. (FILE # PLN20120043) Planner Mike Clugston explained Echelbarger Investments has applied for final approval of the Shaw Lane Plat. He provided the following information: • Review of Final Plants ECDC 20.85.155.D o Type IV -A decision by City Council o If the City Council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirement of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat o City Council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of the dedications shown on the final plat Mr. Clugston reviewed the seven exhibits in the packet: • Exhibit 1: Hearing Examiner’s preliminary plat decision • Exhibit 2: Preliminary plat staff report and attachments • Exhibit 3: Shaw Lane civils • Exhibit 4: Shaw Lane final plat • Exhibit 5: Shaw lane CCRs • Exhibit 6: Final cover letter by applicant • Exhibit 7: Engineering memo describing completion Mr. Clugston identified the location of Shaw Lane on an aerial photograph, approximately ½ mile south of Five Corners and ¼ mile west of Chave Lake Elementary School. He provided the following information regarding the plat: • Zoned RS-8 • 1.45 acres • 6 lots • Private road, utilities • City maintains stormwater easement • 10-foot right-of-way dedication to widen 218th and install curb, gutter and sidewalks • Plat improvements are private and maintenance described in CCRs Mr. Clugston summarized: • Staff recommends approval Packet Page 10 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 8 • All conditions of preliminary approval met • All civil improve ments installed and inspected • Performance bond in place, maintenance bond will be retained • Directors of Public Works and Development Services will sign final plat • Acceptance resolution and homeowners association CCRs reviewed by City Attorney • Recommend forward to Consent Agenda on January 20 for final approval Councilmember Bloom asked about trees on the property. She referred to reference in Exhibit 1 regarding 4 criteria that must be met, the first is whether the proposed subdivision retains environmental resources. She inquired about the other three criteria to be met. Mr. Clugston referred to page 7 of Exhibit 1, Hearing Examiner’s preliminary plat decision, where he addresses environmental factors to be addressed with preliminary plat approval. Preliminary plat approval is a decision made by the Hearing Examiner, not by staff. The Hearing Examiner analyzed the environmental factors and found the criterion was satisfied (line 23, page 7, Exhibit 1). Councilmember Bloom again asked about the four criteria. Mr. Clugston identified the 4 criteria on page 7 of Exhibit 1 related to environment, street and lot layout, dedication and improvements. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Clugston’s explanation that the 4 criteria he cites on page 2 are the criteria the Hearing Examiner addresses in his Conclusions of Law on page 7. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Bloom said trees are environmental resources. She questioned how the decision was made related to the trees as there was no reason to remove two trees other than a request by nearby property owners She asked if the trees had already been removed. Mr. Clugston was not sure which trees Councilmember Bloom was referring to; there were a number of trees shown to be removed as part of the plat improvements. He referenced Exhibit 2, Attachment 4. At the hearing neighbors to the east discussed removing additional property line trees that they felt would be negatively impacted by the development. The Hearing Examiner took that under consideration and allowed removal during plat improvements. Mr. Clugston referenced Condition 2 in the Hearing Examiner’s decision, the applicant is authorized to remove trees along its shared boundary with the Connelly and Hepler properties. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understand that Mr. Connelly stated at the hearing that the trees had been topped recently and branches were falling. She asked whether those trees were determined to be hazardous. Mr. Clugston advised Mr. Connelly submitted photographic evidence that they were. With regard to the trees along the property line, Councilmember Bloom referenced a statement by Mr. Clugston at the hearing that normally the City would retain trees along the property line and roots would be protected during development. She asked whether those trees were subsequently removed even though they would normally would be retained and protected. Mr. Clugston answered yes, the trees along the property line were removed; normally those would have been proposed to be retained but the Hearing Examiner allowed them to be removed because the neighbors indicated they were hazardous. Councilmember Bloom said those were not identified as hazardous, they were trees along the property line that were not determined to be hazardous but the Heplers who live across street requested they be removed. There was nothing in the report about the trees being hazardous. She asked whether the trees were removed and if so, why they were removed if they were not hazardous. Mr. Clugston referred to Sheet C3, Exhibit 3, approved civil plan, which shows the extent of clearing and grading proposed with development of plat and identifies trees to be removed and retained as part of plat development. Councilmember Bloom suggested using information from this decision to inform the proposed new tree code. It was her understanding two trees that were not hazardous along the property that could have been protected during development were removed. Although trees along the property line are normally retained Packet Page 11 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 9 and roots protected during development, the Hearing Examiner gave permission to remove the trees at the request of neighbors. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Bloom quoted from Exhibit 1, page 5 paragraph 4, “The City cannot mandate the removal of the trees. However to the extent that the City’s tree retention requirements are red to encourage the retention of the trees, this decision will authorize their removal.” She asked what the City’s tree retention requirements are and why the Hearing Examiner authorized removal. Mr. Taraday responded right or wrong, it is too late to challenge that decision; the Hearing Examiner essentially authorized removal of the trees in his decision. Councilmember Bloom asked for an explanation of the sentence she quoted. Mr. Taraday explained the Hearing Examiner was saying if the City’s code would ordinarily encourage retention, the people who spoke at the hearing provided him a rational basis for making an exception to the general rule of retention and he was authorizing the trees to be removed. Councilmember Bloom suggested this be used to inform the new tree code and suggested Development Services Director Shane Hope research whether there is stronger tree retention in the new tree code. Councilmember Bloom observed an environmental asset was lost with the removal of those two trees and there was no reason for them to be removed. She commented the City’s tree canopy is fast disappearing which is concerning to the Tree Board. Councilmember Petso doubted any stronger language could be adopted. She referred to packet page 293, a letter from Mr. Clugston that cites ECDC 18.45.050.b, “trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible” and “the preliminary clearing plan shows nearly every tree on the site is proposed to be removed.” At the same time the few trees shown to be retained on the clearing plan appear to be located near a proposed rockery. Mr. Clugston’s letter asked for clarification regarding how the requirement that trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible is being met. She was uncertain how stronger legislation could be adopted other than stating the Hearing Examiner shall not contravene the code. Councilmember Petso said she drove by the site today and there are no trees left. Mr. Clugston answered there are a few along the southern boundary. He referenced Exhibit 3, Sheet C3, the clearing and grading portion of the civil plans, that shows approximately a dozen trees along the south property line were retained. Councilmember Petso referred to the Hearing Examiner’s conditions of approval that states all retained trees must be protected in accordance with 18.45.050. She asked whether the retained trees have been protected. Mr. Clugston answered yes, they were protected during plat improvements. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern someone said the trees were bad but no arborist report was required. She asked whether that it was normal for a citizen to say a tree is bad and it can be removed. Mr. Clugston responded the City’s tree code isn’t the best and needs to be updated. No permit is required to remove trees on a single family parcel with no critical areas. With a subdivision usually only the trees located in the footprint of development are removed; the drawing shows the trees to be removed. The trees along the east property line would not have been removed without the request of the adjoining property owner. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is nothing in the code that requires replanting. Mr. Clugston no, although replanting could have been required. Typically the developer or new homeowners landscape the lots. Councilmember Petso asked whether replanting could have been required. Mr. Clugston answered the code allows replanting of up to three trees per tree removed. That is commonly not required with plats and short plats and individual property owners are allowed to landscape the property. The code currently does not have an in lieu of fund. Councilmember Bloom relayed although she understood nothing can be done at this point, she requested continued discussion be scheduled for full Council on January 20 to allow her an opportunity to formulate Packet Page 12 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 10 questions. Ms. Hope requested Councilmember Bloom submit questions to staff before the packet is prepared. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for full Council on January 20. 9. CITY HALL EXTERIOR ATM CONCESSION AGREEMENT Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed the City was approached by Bruce Barstow about placing an ATM in front of City Hall. The 6-year agreement through 2020 includes sharing of revenues from the machine. The primary reason for the agreement is not a revenue generator but to provide access to cash for people downtown during celebrations, the Summer Market, etc. The agreement involves up to 20 square feet in the alcove south of the building entrance. He advised a public hearing is required; if the ATM were located in a park, a public hearing would not be required. Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about Mr. Barstow’s questions about payment. City Attorney Jeff Taraday did not see a need to make a change. The payment is calculated on gross receipts; even in the first month no payment would owed because there would not be any receipts from the previous month. He offered to incorporate language to make that more clear. Councilmember Bloom commented during the Summer Market there is a booth in that location which would prevent easy access. Mr. Williams advised he will research and respond at the public hearing. Staff will work with the vendor and Facilities Maintenance Manager Jim Stevens on a precise location. Councilmember Bloom relayed the only open area during the Summer Market is in front of the door to City Hall. Councilmember Bloom asked who will decide the color of the enclosure (orange, blue or gray). Mr. Williams asked if there was a preference. Councilmember Bloom answered gray. After a brief conference with the vendor, Mr. Williams relayed Mr. Barstow said gray was acceptable to him. Councilmember Johnson suggested staff contact the Edmonds Museum regarding the layout of the Summer Market. Council President Fraley-Monillas anticipated the Museum would be happy to work out an accessible location. She found the ATM a great idea and that it would encourage people to spend more money at the market. She often does not have enough cash when visiting the Summer Market. Councilmember Petso asked for confirmation that the City has the right to terminate the agreement on 48 hours’ notice without cause. Mr. Williams advised that is stated in the agreement. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for a public hearing next week. 10. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council held a public hearing on the draft Housing Element on December 2. Prior to the public hearing the Planning Board discussed and reviewed the Housing Element and options for updating it. The packet includes the draft element with tracked changes, a clean version with edits included as well as background materials. Staff has been working with the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) who has provided current data regarding housing needs, housing issues, housing affordability for a range of income levels, etc. A good portion of that material is included in the draft Housing Element. Other revisions to the element include updated census data, projections, etc. She identified new items in the element: Packet Page 13 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 11 • Addition of a performance measure: Measuring the number of housing units permitted per year. • Addition of an action item: Work on a housing strategy over the next several years. By 2019 develop ideas about what else could be done to encourage affordability The next steps are to make any technical corrections, continue working on the other elements and bring them to the Council individually and hold a public hearing this summer on all elements. An open house will be held on February 25 as well as other public opportunity for review of the elements. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed additional staff would be necessary to do this on a long term basis and there was not currently enough staff capacity to develop affordable housing. Ms. Hope responded the proposal is only to develop a strategy, not to fund or build housing. The strategy would be related to things the City could partner on and to identify options and things that could be done related to the code, lobbying the legislature, obtaining grants, offering incentives, etc. While additional funding/staffing would be nice, Ms. Hope said by working with AHA additional budget would not be necessary to develop a strategy. Councilmember Petso asked the basis for the target of 112 new units per year. Ms. Hope answered it was based on the population projection out to 2035; the average is 112 units/year. She clarified that number was not required but would be used to measure performance. Councilmember Petso asked about the assumed number of occupants per household. Ms. Hope answered it is slightly more than two. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked how the Housing Element had been revised. With regard to the action item, she asked whether a halfway point should be identified. She observed there were a number of things that could be done such as changing zoning, incentives such as Seattle is using, etc. Ms. Hope answered the intent was not to be too detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. A housing strategy could look at options in conjunction with AHA who has indicated their willingness to work with Edmonds and other jurisdictions on developing a strategy. Councilmember Bloom observed a great deal of text was eliminated on pages 204 and 205 related to supporting the disabled in their homes, weatherization, etc. Ms. Hope advised much of that was removed because it was not practical for the City to do and it is preferable to partner with other agencies and to encourage more partnerships. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 209, Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income senior housing in the City. Ms. Hope advised that was existing language. She offered to research the density bonus. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 209, Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the statement that PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. She suggested that has not happening with PRD development. For example, the Burnstead property used a wildlife preserve to meet open space requirements. She suggested the PRD codes need to be updated and asked whether the Comprehensive Plan should state what is occurring not what is hoped to happen. Ms. Hope relayed the challenge for this update was not to rewrite the entire Comprehensive Plan; the goal was to fine-tune language. She viewed Councilmember Bloom’s comments as guidance for the code update. For Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hope advised accessory dwellings units (ADU) are currently allowed as an attached unit with strict standards. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a home could be constructed with an ADU and an ADU could be added to an existing home. Ms. Hope agreed an ADU could be constructed under both scenarios as long as it was attached. Packet Page 14 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 12 Councilmember Bloom referred to Conversion/Adaptive Reuse on page 209, and asked whether anything could be done to increase the number of structures on the Edmonds Registry of Historic Places. Ms. Hope suggested continuing to work with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Councilmember Johnson relayed the HPC has begun to track demolitions as demolitions are often historic homes. Councilmember Petso relayed she met with a citizen today who provided information regarding a method of demolition that recycles and reuses materials. Ms. Hope anticipated the code update will consider what can be done to encourage and in some cases require recycling of materials. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8:45 12. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS Council President Fraley-Monillas advised the application was made available today; applicants have until February 2 to return applications. She suggested interviews be held February 17 and 18 and, to provide time for Councilmembers to call applicants, Council deliberations be held on Tuesday, March 3. Councilmember Petso advised she would be unable to attend the Economic Development Commission meeting on February 18. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there were numerous conflicts; Councilmembers will need to prioritize the interviews as appointing a seventh Councilmember is the most important. It was agreed to start interviews at 5:00 p.m. on February 17 and at 6:00 p.m. on February 18 with 40 minutes per interview. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the intent was to also conduct a business meeting on March 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered she hoped the meeting would primarily be deliberations. It was agreed to begin deliberations at 6:00 p.m. on March 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the interview/voting process. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding last year that the equipment does not allow the meeting to be taped but not live streamed. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed IT is able to tape the meeting and air it later. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether applicants actually watched the live stream and said she preferred to live steam the interviews. Councilmember Mesaros relayed when he appointed, there were 14 interviews. The first six applicants were waiting for their turn; the later applicants had watched the interviews and knew the questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the interviews will be conducted over two days; both she and Councilmember Peterson felt it was better not to live stream the interviews but tape and air them after the interviews are concluded. She offered to double-check with IT regarding taping but not live streaming. Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed the proposed Edmonds City Council Interview and Voting Process: • Prior to the Interview Meeting: o Staff will provide either a paper or electronic copy of all application materials for each candidate, along with a list of candidates and their interview times, and a Composite Scoring Sheet. Packet Page 15 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 13 o At least two business days prior to the scheduled interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit one question each to the Council President, who may also submit a question for a total of seven questions. o Council may call applicants with independent questions prior to interview Councilmember Buckshnis suggested there may need to be more questions or less time. She suggested each Councilmember provide two questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Item 4 below. Council President Fraley-Monillas continued her review of the proposed Edmonds City Council Interview and Voting Process: • Open Public Interview Meeting o For fair and open process the interviews will not be live streamed but will be played after interviews are completed. Interviews for a vacant City Council position will be conducted in an open public meeting. Each interview of an applicant/candidate will be no longer than 40 minutes in length as follows: 1. The applicants’ order of appearance is determined by the order in which their applications were received. 2. Only the applicant being interviewed will be allowed in Council Chambers; the other applicants will be waiting in an area to be determined by the City Clerk. After completing their interview, each applicant may remain in Council chambers. 3. The applicant will have an opening statement to the City Council. ( 2 minutes ) 4. The City Council will ask a predetermined set of questions which must be responded to by the applicant. Each applicant will be asked and will answer the same set of questions, and will have 2 minutes to answer each question. (15 minutes ) 5. Councilmembers may engage in an informal question and answer period in which they may ask and receive answers to miscellaneous questions. (each councilmember will have 1 minute for a question and applicant will have 2 minutes for response) 6. Applicant will have the opportunity for a 2 minute closing statement 7. Councilmembers should score each applicant during the interview. 8. The City Council may reduce the 40 minute interview time if the number of applicants exceeds six (6) candidates, or alternatively, the Council may elect not to interview all of the applicants if the number exceeds six (6) candidates. 9. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City Council may adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the qualifications of the applicants. However, all interviews, deliberations, nominations and votes taken by the City Council shall be in an open public session. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the section regarding Reconvening the Public Meeting for Voting, under #1 each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top three candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes, was taken from another cities’ process in an effort to narrow the field of applicants. Councilmember Bloom referred to #8 above and asked when a determination would be made whether to interview all applicants. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to #1 on the second page under Reconvening the Public Meeting for Voting. Councilmember Mesaros suggested this would occur before interviews were conducted. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to alternatives for determining the interview order of candidates and voting. Councilmember Mesaros said he liked the process described under #1 on the Packet Page 16 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 14 second page (Each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top three candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes.), envisioning it would provide an idea of Councilmembers’ top candidates prior to interviews. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her and Councilmember Peterson’s intent; somehow narrowing the field of applicants to be interviewed and narrow the field further after interviews which may allow the process to proceed more smoothly than it has in the past. Councilmember Petso said #1 on the second page is in regard to voting, not limiting the pool of applicants for interview. She did not mind limiting the pool of applicants for interview as much although she did not understand why that would be done and she will personally talk to all the applicants regardless of whether the pool of applicants is narrowed. She was not comfortable with limiting candidates during voting. She recalled instances when a compromise emerged during deliberations. She anticipated it would be more difficult to reach a compromise when a Councilmember had to vote for their first choice throughout voting. She recalled during the process of selecting a City Attorney, the Council made the mistake of reducing to two candidates. She did not support reducing candidates during nominations, anticipating it would make it harder to reach a compromise. Councilmember Johnson commented the goal is to improve the process, be more efficient, and yet be fair. She objected to there being an opportunity through this process for a coalition that influenced the process via the elimination. She supported the idea of keeping it to a small number but it requires four votes to select a Councilmember. She suggested each Councilmember vote for their top ten to ensure a broader process. She suggested only interviewing candidates who could get four votes. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled she and Councilmember Peterson discussed the number because it could vary. She anticipated 20 applicants could be reduced to 10-14. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was Mukilteo’s process. Council President Fraley-Monillas said most of it is Mukilteo’s, part of it is Shoreline’s. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out some people do not plan to apply because they plan to run for the open seat. She suggested expanding the list to 10. She summarized this will be a different selection process because the person will need to run a campaign to retain their seat. Councilmember Petso said rather than reducing then number of ballots by reducing the number of candidates, she preferred to change the deadlock provision. Under the current process, nominations are made and voting continues until the vote is the same three times. She recalled sometimes the vote will be the same twice and then a Councilmember changes their vote followed by several rounds of unproductive voting. She suggested the Council be allowed to declare a deadlock by motion and reopen nominations and even precede that with a break if necessary rather than repeated votes to reach three identical votes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it may be difficult to reach a consensus on a deadlock. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the number of candidates to interview. Councilmember Bloom did not want to limit the number of candidate interviews, feeling it would not be fair not to give applicants an interview. For some it is an opportunity to share concerns and talk about issues that matter to them. If they take the time to complete the application, they should be interviewed. Councilmember Mesaros commented if the City receives 25 applications, that is a lot of interviews. Every Council meeting provides citizens an opportunity to share their thoughts. This effort is to select a new Councilmember, not to provide a forum for sharing thoughts. Most interview processes provide an opportunity to select applicants to be interviewed. The Council needs to be smart enough to make that Packet Page 17 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 15 determination. He suggested making this decision on February 3 based on the number of applicants. This was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Johnson suggested only interviewing applicants that can be selected which honors everyone who applies and results in a more efficient process. During the last selection process, the Council interviewed 14 applicants and the 30 minute time limit did not include the time to provide the introduction or asking questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out one of the reason for changing the questions on the application was to gather more/better information from applicants. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the proposed interview process such as the two minute opening statement, predetermined questions, and an opportunity to submit a question. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested not limiting the time for an opening statement. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with not limiting the time for an opening statement but suggested applicants be informed of the 40 timeframe, that there will be 6 questions and 1 from each Councilmember and allow the applicant to manage their time. This was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Johnson commented the time limits will depend on the number of people that are interviewed. Councilmember Bloom commented some people do not know how long they are talking. She suggested provide a cue when they have reached two minutes. Councilmember Petso referred to #7 above regarding scoring applicants and said applicants are scored, she will provide her score sheet later to allow her time to re-watch portions of the interviews, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the process of voting, whether Councilmembers wanted to continue with the existing method or change it. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to retain the way it has been done in the past. Last time was an anomaly; it had not been that time consuming in the past. Councilmember Johnson did not like the existing process and did not want to go through 59 votes. She suggested some way of identifying people that can be selected. One way would be for Councilmembers to indicate who they would consider. Another would be to only consider people who can receive four votes. She recalled there was a voting block last time that resulted in a great deal of inefficiency. Councilmember Petso asked what Councilmember Johnson meant by only vote on those people that can be selected. If a person can get 4 votes, they can be selected. She was unsure why people who could get four votes would be identified first and then select among them. Councilmember Johnson replied many people could get four votes and many would not. She wanted to avoid the 58 votes that did not result in 1 person receiving 4 votes. Councilmember Mesaros suggested if ten people applied, the Council could interview them all. Or, to narrow the field, each Councilmember could vote for their top 4 out of the 10, and the Council would interview the 6 applicants that get the most votes or further narrow the field by voting on the top 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was Mukilteo’s process. Councilmember Bloom asked how the individuals who would get four votes would be identified in advance. Councilmember Johnson explained if the Council interviewed all applicants, rather than selecting the top 5, Councilmembers could vote for a predetermined number of candidates and voting would only progress on the applicants that received 4 votes. Councilmember Bloom did not agree a lot of candidates would receive four votes. She also did not agree with Councilmember Johnson about the Packet Page 18 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 16 voting block; she voted for the candidate she felt was best and she made a very reasoned choice. She preferred Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion but starting with a large number of applicants. Councilmember Petso said the process Councilmember Mesaros described is exactly what she is trying to avoid as it reminded her of the City Attorney process where a compromise choice was eliminated with only two candidates. She encouraged the Council not to do that, finding it very manipulative. Councilmember Bloom suggested the Council may want to go into executive session more frequently to discuss the candidates if there are deadlocks. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized: • Consensus reached to make a decision on February 3 regarding whether all candidates will be interviewed • Consensus reached regarding the 40 minute interview length and informing applicants about the length of time • No consensus reached regarding the voting process (discuss at future Council meeting) 13. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Councilmember Bloom said the code of ethics proposed by Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson was essentially the major bullet points in Shoreline’s Code of Ethics but not the sub-points. Her research found a lot of confusion between what ethics are and what conduct is. Ethics is a field of study and many professions are required to take code of ethics classes to maintain their licenses. Not including the sub-points expects the public to know what is meant by the bullet points. Shoreline’s policy is succinct and gives examples under each bullet. She did not want to eliminate the specific examples, finding that watered the code down to where it was not understandable. A citizen reading the code needs those details to determine whether someone has committed a breach of ethics. Councilmember Bloom referred to Shoreline’s policy, specifically seek no favor; believe that personal benefit or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. She asked Mr. Taraday to explain the last bullet point regarding reference checking: reference checking and responding to agency requests are a normal function of municipal business and is not prohibited if it does not adversely affect the operation of the City. Mr. Taraday suggested asking Shoreline. Councilmember Bloom summarized that was the only thing in Shoreline’s policy that may need to be removed. Council President Fraley-Monillas read from the proposed code of ethics, The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conducted of elected and appointed officials and employees. She pointed out appointed officials and employees are covered under the code of ethics that exists for staff including department directors. The proposed code of ethics addresses only Councilmembers. Councilmember Bloom said all other codes of ethics include elected and appointed officials which would include all the directors who are nominated by the Mayor and approved by Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated there is a separate code of ethics for staff. Councilmember Bloom asked to see staff’s code of ethics. Mr. Taraday explained all employees are subject to the personnel policies which include obligations that could be considered ethical obligations. To the extent Council feels there is a gap in the obligations already placed on employees in the personnel policies, he recommended fixing that gap by supplementing the personnel policies so that anything that applies to an employee is contained in the personnel policies. He cautioned against having 2-3 different documents that outline staff’s obligations. Packet Page 19 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 17 Councilmember Bloom said she was not talking about all the employees; she was talking about appointed officials or officers, the directors who make decisions related to the code. Every ethical policy she has reviewed includes the officers. Mr. Taraday commented it is difficult to discuss in the abstract without knowing exactly what ethical obligation she was interested in imposing on a particular officer; it may already be in the personnel policies. Councilmember Bloom said what she has seen does not include what is in the code of ethics. She asked that the ethics policy in the personnel policy to be presented to the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 3, Employee Responsibilities and Code of Ethics. She read from Attachment 3, • All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens’ rights, and showing courtesy to all. • Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City’s actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. • City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner • They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. • They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City’s business Council President Fraley-Monillas said Attachment 3 also includes a section on outside employment and conflicts of interest and how to report improper government action. She was uncertain what else needed to be addressed in a code of ethics. The department directors are City staff and should adhere to the employee responsibilities and code of ethics in the personnel policies, not the proposed code of ethics. Councilmember Petso shared her concern with the code of ethics concept: there are questions regarding who it applies to, whether it only applies to Councilmembers, where it applies to appointed officers which she was told also includes members of boards and commissions. She referred to one of the vouchers the Council approved where the payee is a member of a board or commission and the service purchased from that person was related to the commission on which that person serves. She questioned whether that was somewhere the City wanted to go and what was the motivation. She discovered for each ethical conflict there are a variety of responses including, 1) do nothing and approve the voucher, or 2) investigate. She summarized possibly complying with the law is good enough. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled two instances of commissioners acting inappropriately in the last two years. She preferred the code of ethics not apply to staff as there are already personnel policies in place. She suggested starting small and expanding as necessary. Some people believe a code of ethics is very important; she believed in treating others like you want to be treated, be professional, be an adult, make decisions and move forward. She suggested minor changes could be made to the proposed code of ethics. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented ethics mean different things to different people which is why the code was shortened and bulleted. She and Councilmember Peterson began with Shoreline’s language but eliminated portions because it can be so subjective. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the Council consider the code of ethics presented by Council President Fraley-Monillas, correcting the opening paragraph to remove employees. He felt the code of ethics should apply to boards and commissions and elected officials. He liked the brevity, simplicity and clarity of the proposed code. Mayor Earling advised the directors are employees of the City and he would reject any other interpretation. If the Council included boards and commissions, he suggested the Council consider how they would present it to each board and commission to ensure they understood their responsibilities. Packet Page 20 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 18 If this comes back to the Council again, Councilmember Johnson requested including the code of conduct that was adopted at the end of 2013. For Councilmember Petso, Council President Fraley-Monillas advised the proposed code of ethics is contained in Attachment 10. Councilmember Bloom did not agree with including the code of conduct, relaying it is different than a code of ethic and the City needs to have both. A code of ethics addresses conflict of interest; a code of conduct addresses contact and how people treat each other. She disagreed with watering down the code of ethics as people do not understand what ethics are. The bullet points in Shoreline’s code offer clarity and help people understand. She recommended having an ethic officer which could be a contract position. Councilmember Buckshnis was strongly opposed to an ethics commission because she feared it would turn into a political issue. She suggested starting small and expanding as necessary. She did not support including staff as they are already covered by the personnel policies. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested moving this to another study session. She agreed the code of conduct was far different than a code of ethics. 14. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded of the Snohomish County Cities meeting this Thursday. The meeting will include Congresswoman DelBene and election of AWC and other positions. To Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Earling said Go Seahawks. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis said Go Pack Go. She will be not be in town for Sunday’s game but will be watching game with her husband. She thanked everyone who called her; she received numerous compliments about the last year and about various Councilmembers. She looked forward to this being a wonderful year. Councilmember Johnson also said Go Hawks. Councilmember Petso said Go Hawks. She relayed the Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing a certificate of appropriateness for work to the exterior and grounds of the museum property. She will make information available at the Council office. Councilmember Bloom concurred it will be good year. Councilmember Mesaros said he will be in Phoenix on February 1 and offered to be the City’s official representative at the Super Bowl. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Seahawks. Packet Page 21 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 19 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 9:59 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. At 10:20 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the members present in the jury room that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday Cates, Carrie Hite, Maryann Hardie, and Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 10:29 p.m. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m. There was no action taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Packet Page 22 of 394 AM-7437 4. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - 1-20-2015 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Attachments 1/20/15 City Council Draft Meeting Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor 01/22/2015 03:29 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:30 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/22/2015 10:34 AM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 23 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 20, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Lora Petso, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Mike Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite, Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Deputy Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 6:56 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL Deputy Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Petso. Packet Page 24 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETSO. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECK #212411 DATED JANUARY 13, 2015 FOR $1,776,042.50 AND CLAIM CHECKS #212412 THROUGH #212552 DATED JANUARY 15, 2015 FOR $2,212,452.10. APPROVAL OF CLOTHING ALLOWANCE CHECKS #61447 THROUGH #61459 DATED JANUARY 12, 2015 FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSIONED EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,178.06 PER UNION CONTRACT C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DENNIS THORNBERRY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND BARRY AND BERNADETTE SOMERS ($4,455.16) D. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING REVISIONS TO EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10.16 CEMETERY BOARD ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2015 Councilmember Bloom said she had a correction but could not find it right now. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmember Bloom request the correction be made next week. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Michael Echelbarger, Edmonds, displayed a typical plat with over 100 trees, noting approximately 10% are actually large shrubs such as laurel. He displayed a drawing of the Shaw Lane subdivision, identifying a low area that was filled, explaining the goal was for the new street to be at the same elevation and the lots approximately one foot higher for good drainage. He displayed a drawing of the area that would be cleared for houses, street and frontage improvements, vaults, etc. He displayed a drawing illustrating all the areas cleared for houses, vaults, and streets on a 1.5 acre lot, leaving approximately 20 trees in one area and 5-10 trees on the north property line which the neighbors wanted removed. In an 8,000 square foot plat, the preponderance of the area in the plat has to be cleared. Every tree removed is a negative cost to the builder all the debris must be hauled away, chipped, etc. He summarized no one removes a tree just because; a tree is removed because it is dangerous, could be dangerous or in this case, the neighbors did not like them. He displayed a 6,000 square foot lot, identifying a very small area where a tree could be saved and summarizing on a 6,000 square foot plat, virtually nothing remains. Packet Page 25 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 3 Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, spoke regarding the sign code. She advised in Old Mill Town, the sign code allowed 20 signs along 5th and Dayton spread over 20 signs or 10 signs at a corner due to the way the definition of premises was interpreted. This resulted in an inordinate number of signs on a building that received money from a foundation to make it make more attractive. The purpose of beautification is defeated when a lax sign code allows that many signs and particularly in the bowl where a great deal of money is spent on beautification. Another example of the lax sign code is temporary signs which businesses can display for a total of 60 cumulative days per calendar year. In fact temporary signs are permanent because the City does not monitor the number of days a temporary sign is displayed and could not proceed with enforcement without that information and could not proceed to a hearing or legal proceeding with third party information. She referred to comments by Planning Manager Rob Chave at a March 11, 2014 committee meeting regarding the need for a major overhaul of the sign code and the need for the Planning Board to do extensive outreach to ensure all views were considered. Although this was a Council priority, a year later it is not on the Planning Board’s extended agenda through June 2015. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, stated his opposition to the proposal to limit the number of applicant interviews for the vacant Council seat if there are more than six applicants, pointing out interviewing all applicants is a very important element of the public process. The individuals who submit applications will devote time and effort to preparing for the process; denying them the opportunity to be interviewed in public does a disservice to them and the entire Edmonds community. It is a disincentive to adequate preparation and it prevents applicants who are not interviewed from engaging in topics important to them and the City. Limiting the number of applicant interviews also reduces the involvement of the public in this process. Although Councilmembers meeting/speaking with applicants outside the public process may provide a valuable perspective for Councilmembers in making their decision, private conversations cannot replace public interviews. Interviews are the only opportunity for applicants to engage the public and Council and to present a compelling reason for appointment. This appointment process is not similar to a private business interview process where applicants can be narrowed to only a few. He proposed holding all interviews on the same day, perhaps a Saturday in order to avoid giving any candidate an unfair advantage. The interests of Edmonds citizens are best served by interviewing all applicants. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Witenberg, his information is well thought out and well organized. Mr. Hertrich said he and others would apply if the number of executive session were reduced. 5. VETERANS' PLAZA PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF CONCEPT Jim Blossey, Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #8870 and representing other veterans groups such as the American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and Disabled American Veterans, said they all support the Veterans’ Plaza outside the Public Safety Building entrance. The Veterans’ Plaza is about three things: honor, remembrance and sacrifice. He explained everyone knows veterans who have sacrificed, some who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, others who have sacrificed their minds, peacefulness, and bodies. He recognized a veteran friend here tonight, Dr. John Shelton, who has been in a wheelchair since he was wounded in Vietnam. He has carved out an exemplary life since then but not without great sacrifice. Also present tonight are veterans whose service dates back to WWII. Mr. Blossey explained sacrifice does not end with war; the Veterans’ Plaza will require a little sacrifice from all including money, time, effort and possibly some convenience. He asked the entire community to shoulder some of this sacrifice in order to honor the brave men and women who have served. Mr. Blossey introduced Ron Clyborne, past President of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, chair of the parade and fireworks displays, former Edmonds Professional of the Year, member of VFW #8870, lifetime Marine and Vietnam combat veteran. Packet Page 26 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 4 For Mayor Earling, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite described the presentation. Following Mr. Clyborne’s presentation she will describe the process, followed by a presentation by Site Workshop, the public hearing and Council discussion. Ron Clyborne, U.S. Marine Corp Vietnam Veteran, member of the VFW, American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America and the Veterans’ Plaza Committee Chairman, was excited to present the process of the Veterans’ Plaza design competition for Council consideration. After the 2014 public dedication that was attended by over 150 members of the community, the committee was immediately increased to include a broader spectrum of the community, including members of the City Council, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Edmonds Community College, Rotary, VFW, American Legion, Edmonds Museum, as well as family members of local veterans’ families and many other proud supporters of the Veterans’ Plaza, uniting in a collaborative, caring and respectful effort. The committee’s first order of business was to create a Veterans Plaza design contest, providing specific criteria and parameters to numerous public, private, academic and nonprofit organization as well as some local individual artists and designers, inviting them to submit designs from August 1, 2014 through October 15, 2014. The committee received ten submissions from throughout the United States as well as one from Mexico, all of which were quite amazing. After committee members considered the submissions and designs, the submissions were narrowed to four designs from two firms in King and Whatcom Counties. The committee interviewed the representatives, reviewed the designs, and voted for the design that best met the criteria established by the committee. The vote was unanimous; one design stood out above all, to the point that some were brought to tears looking at it. Since that decision, the winning vendor, Site Workshop, who has worked with City in the past, participated in a follow-up meeting. After a great deal of effort, the committee is proud to make this presentation for Council approval. Council approval of this proposal will allow the project to proceed to the next steps, 30% design and organizing a fundraising campaign. On behalf of committee, he thanked the City Council for providing the necessary funds to proceed with the 30% phase. He also thanked the Council for their past support of the Veterans’ Plaza and looked forward to approval of the design that truly honors the men and women who have served. He noted time can be important; unfortunately each day more men and women are lost serving their country. Ms. Hite recalled a unanimous vote of the City Council directed a community group to proceed with design concepts and bring concepts to the Council. She referred to emails today, one from Mr. and Mrs. Wilcox, about conflicts between the Garden Market and the wall proposed in the design. It is her intent for the Parks Department to meet with the Wilcox and Garden Market representatives in an effort to mitigate their concerns and find a win-win solution. She understood when the Garden Market originated, the City did not support the use of the Bell Street triangle. She recommended Council consider the use of the triangle and provide direction to staff regarding use of that area for the Garden Market. She was honored to work with the Veterans’ Plaza Committee and assured the Council the City has been involved in the process; she reviewed the RFP and the submittals, and was part of the interview process. She assured the community group produced a fair and equitable process. Brian Bishop, Landscape Architect, Site Workshop, introduced Andrea Fitch and explained they were involved in the competition and entry that was selected. They are honored and excited to start working with the veterans group to realize this vision for the Veterans’ Plaza. Site Workshop has been working with the City on the spray park project. Mr. Bishop displayed an aerial of the site, identifying the plaza in front of the Public Safety Building that was selected as the location for the Veterans’ Plaza. The RFP stipulated the design not disrupt infrastructure, sidewalks or utilities in a major way. Their design builds on the framework of the existing Packet Page 27 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 5 plaza, creating a space that honors the contributions and qualities of veterans in the Edmonds community while limiting impacts on the existing infrastructure, enhancing the existing public spaces and creating a stronger sense of place within the plaza. He reviewed their design approach which includes five elements: • Extend plaza slightly to the north • Create memorial wall and screen parking • Add water • Create memorial garden, make more accessible • Provide seating He displayed the site plan with three elements, memorial wall on the north side of the plaza, the memorial garden along the south and east of the plaza, and the seating elements in the existing plaza. Their goal was to provide a simple and timeless design that will be embraced by the community. He described the memorial wall, one wall divided into five segments as the military is divided into five branches, representing that shared experience and individual experiences of each branch. They propose using a combination of granite with different finishes to clad the wall to reflect a sense of permanence and strength. Another advantage of granite is an opportunity to artfully incorporate branch emblems, histories and mottos into the wall. The water element that creates the five branch segments recognizes military veterans have traveled long distances from home and community across water and reinforces the sense of separation from loved ones and community while serving. The water elements will line up with existing elements in the plaza such as the trees and concrete banding. He displayed a section drawing showing the relationship through the plaza of the existing trees, the water wall that will empty into a runnel that terminates at the existing flagpole, and additional plantings on the back side of the wall. Mr. Bishop described the memorial garden, commenting the existing oak tree frames the space previously designated as the Veterans’ Plaza and the existing boulder with a plaque. The existing wall would be amended to create a contemplative, private space that compliments the memorial wall which is a more public space, increase access to the garden and incorporate a gathering area with the boulder as a focal element. Currently the only way to experience the boulder and plaque are to look over the wall or walk onto the grass from the sidewalk on Bell Street. The garden will also include built-in seating and a northwest native palate. He described the seating cubes, explaining the site currently functions as a pass-through site to the entrance of the building. The seating cubes provide an opportunity for pause and rest, ties the wall and the garden together across the plaza, as well as creates more seating for the public space and events. Mr. Bishop explained upon approval of the design concept, the next step will be to begin work on a 30% design effort which will allow them to better frame the project scope such as construction aspects, systems, etc. as well as work with the committee on fundraising. Councilmember Bloom thanked Site Workshop for using and enhancing what already exists. She agreed the oak tree was beautiful and the trees were well chosen for site and are in good health. She asked how the seating cubes would be designed to accommodate the slant of the plaza. Mr. Bishop answered it is very early in the design process, typically one side will be selected to be the most comfortable seating height of 16-18” which will result in other sides being shorter. Design features will be used to a comfortable place to sit that will not look odd due to the slope. Councilmember Bloom observed it appears the cubes seat only one person. Mr. Bishop answered as drawn they are 2’x2’, comfortably seating 1-2 people. Their goal was to be cognizant of other uses in the plaza and limit the size to a comfortable proportion to the space. Further in the design there may be Packet Page 28 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 6 opportunity for a large cube to seat more people. Councilmember Bloom preferred to have space for more than one person to provide a community gathering feeling. Councilmember Bloom observed the cubes appear low and asked whether they would be accessible for individuals who have difficulty sitting or rising. Mr. Bishop answered the standard 16-18” height is quite typical when designing seating. They could look into adjusting the height to be slightly higher. The cubes in the drawings are a typical seating height that would be found in a seating wall. Councilmember Bloom wanted to ensure anyone with difficulty sitting or standing would be able to use the cubes. Councilmember Bloom observed the garden area appears to be grass. Mr. Bishop answered this is a very schematic model. He displayed a drawing illustrating a northwest native palate. He noted it would make sense to leave some lawn so the area was accessible from Bell Street. He anticipated a more formal planted edge on the plaza side to create a sense of arrival. Councilmember Johnson congratulated Site Workshop on being selected and thanked everyone involved in the process. She inquired about potential phasing of the three basic concepts and which part would be done first. Mr. Bishop answered a priority or sequencing has not been identified. The intent was a flexible plan and they have been working with the committee to identify priorities. The goal would be to construct everything in one phase but the three elements provide an opportunity for a phased approach if necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked the Veterans’ Plaza will be beautiful and she likes the preliminary design. She asked whether the water will be recycled. Mr. Bishop answered yes, there will be a small vault and the water will be recirculated. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it is a very interesting design that will bring value to the downtown core. She asked about funding for the plaza. Ms. Hite answered it is the committee’s intent to fund development for the project. A conservative estimate of the cost is approximately $450,000. In discussion with Site Workshop during the interview and follow-up meeting with the committee, they were asked to identify options for reducing costs such as a slate-clad wall instead of a full slate wall. The goal is the same look and feel as their design and to identify areas for potential savings. The committee is waiting for 30% design and materials before beginning the fundraising. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the plaza may be phased depending on funding. Ms. Hite agreed, noting the RFP included use of the existing site, cost savings and a phasing plan. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested seeking donations from the Garden Club, Hazel Miller Foundation and grants. She also suggested establishing a Veterans’ Plaza fund within the City to accept tax deductible donations. Ms. Hite agreed that could be done; the Council included $10,000 in the 2015 budget to begin the design process. The committee has discussed a structure for fundraising; she will work out the details with the committee. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested it may be easier to accept donations through the City rather than establishing a 501(c)3. Ms. Hite assured the logistics would be worked out soon. Councilmember Mesaros reported he met with several members of the committee today and volunteered his services to guide them in fundraising. There are ample resources in the community to fund this and it will be fun and exciting to gather those resources to honor veterans via the Veterans’ Plaza. Council President Fraley-Monillas noted Councilmember Mesaros is a veteran. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Packet Page 29 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 7 Michael Reagan, Edmonds, Vietnam combat veteran, life member of VFW 8870 and Post 66 and the artist for the Fallen Heroes Portrait Project for the past 11 years, explained every day he looks into the face of a dead soldier to draw their portrait to send to their family. In talking with the family members to learn about the person he is drawing, the thing families are most afraid of is that they will be forgotten. As a Vietnam veteran, a lot of his friends were forgotten; his goal was to ensure that did not happen. In addition to the portraits, he promises the families, as long as he has a voice, he will not allow people to forget their sacrifice. To reduce the stress of spending 10-12 hours/day drawing portraits, he walks from Meadowdale to the Senior Center. In November, after a plaque was installed outside the Public Safety Building, he altered his route so he can visit the plaque and talk to his friends who did not come home or the family and friends of the people he just drew. The plaque created a place for him that not only recognizes his service but all the people he works with which helps their healing. He has given talks at many veterans' plazas over the past 11 years; his one regret upon returning home was his hometown of Edmonds did not have a place. He anticipated seeing a person standing at the memorial in the middle of the night saying goodbye to a friend, noting providing a place to do that may save a life. As a Vietnam combat veteran who came home rough, he thanked the City for giving him a place when he walks, a place he and his friends need. Robert Stivers, Edmonds, a veteran but speaking as citizen, expressed his support for the Parks Department’s proposal to reconcile the Garden Market with the Veterans’ Plaza design. He described his wife’s enjoyment of the Garden Market, noting the Garden Market is something veterans fight for, the freedom to freely exchange good and services. A compromise solution can be easily identified to alleviate the Garden Market’s concerns and garner their support for the Veterans’ Plaza. He suggested rotating the thickness of the wall 90 degrees to allow both sides to be visible and allow a wide aisle to walk through between the parking and the market. He relayed his understanding that the Garden Market also uses that area as a pathway for setting up the market. Free exchange of goods and services, ideas, concepts and art are essential to society. Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, explained the committee included a representative from the Museum, Board Member Jack Hall, a former officer. The committee purposely asked Mr. Hall and the president of the Museum, Bill Lambert, to provide a representative because this area hosts both the Garden Market and the Summer Market. The committee was somewhat surprised by the email exchange. As a former Museum Board Member, he knew the importance of the markets, the Museum’s main fundraiser and assured the Veterans’ Plaza Committee was willing to work with the Museum on a win-win for everyone. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there were any other potential conflicts in addition to the Garden Market. Ms. Hite answered no. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the alternate location for the Garden Market. Ms. Hite explained moving the market into the street where the Summer Market is held would allow the wall to be constructed as designed. When the Museum approached the City to expand the market prior to the Summer Market, the City did not allow the street to be closed for the 8-week period. She encouraged the City to consider that and discuss it with the market representatives, noting it is a great location, access is still provided and provides vendors access to their vehicles. Councilmember Mesaros commented over the past 25-30 years he has visited nation’s capital many times with his family as well as alone. During those trips he always visits the Vietnam Memorial and the name of a high school classmate, Tom Tingley. When he went to college in 1966, Tom joined the Marine Corp but did not come back. He also visits the Korean War Memorial and the WWII Memorial and took his son to the groundbreaking of the WWII Memorial. He looked forward to visiting a similar place in Edmonds. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to provide such a place. Packet Page 30 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 8 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT PENDING DISCUSSION WITH THE MUSEUM TO ALLOW CLOSURE OF BELL STREET TO ALLOW THE GARDEN MARKET TO OPERATE LIKE THE SUMMER MARKET. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the current concept. She acknowledged the concern expressed by Wilcox and the opportunity to close Bell Street for the Garden Market. Ms. Hite advised it will take a few days to measure the space and ensure it will work. Mayor Earling suggested the Council approve the concept to allow the design to move forward and have Ms. Hite present other potential alternatives in a few weeks. Councilmember Buckshnis amended her motion as follows with the agreement of the second: COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the intent is to work out the location of the Garden Market in the best way possible for everyone involved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope referred to information in packet and online regarding the Comprehensive Plan update and the update of the Land Use Element. She described what the Comprehensive Plan is: • Comprehensive Plans are key local policy documents o Guided by GMA • Under GMA, local governments must implement and be consistent with their Comprehensive Plan She provided an overview of the process: • Under GMA, Comprehensive Plans are subject to major review and update every 8 years • Next Comprehensive Plan major update for Edmonds, due to State by mid-2015 o Determination early in process to update existing Comprehensive Plan, not complete rewrite o Chapter-by-chapter review by Planning Board and public hearing at City Council • New planning horizon: 2035 instead of 2025 Ms. Hope reviewed key changes to the Land Use Element: • Updated Census, housing and population targets data • Added text to explain regional planning policies • Moved design standards for the Downtown/Waterfront to Urban Design section • Reformatted goals and policies • Updated outdated text in Open Space and Noise Pollution sections • Removed Water Resources and Drain Management section (information covered in Utilities Element) Packet Page 31 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 9 With regard to demographics, she provided a chart with the percentage of age groups (under 20, 20-44, 45-64, 65-85 and 85+) in Washington, Snohomish County and Edmonds in 2000, 2010 and 2013. In 2011 the first baby boomers turned 65. In 2035, baby boomers will be 71 to 89 years of age She provided a table of historical and projected growth 1940 to 2035 in Edmonds and noted: • Annual growth rate between 2000-2010 was 0.05% • Annual growth rate between 2010-2013 was 0.85% • The projected annual growth rate from 2010 to 2013 is 0.6% She displayed a pie chart of current land use categories by percentage of City land area: Singe family urban 39.7% Singe family resource 22.7% Multi-family 6.5% Mixed use 5.9% Commercial 0.9% Medical 0.3% Parks 5.3% Open space 0.9% Utilities 0.2% Right-of-way 17.6% Ms. Hope displayed a map of the two activity centers identified in the existing Comprehensive Plan that are proposed to stay the same in the updated Comprehensive Plan: • Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center • Medical/Hwy 99 • Activity centers address the following goals o Build on existing community character o Pedestrian-oriented o Multimodal o Mixed use o Urban Design o Balanced (re)development o Adaptive reuse She provided an overview of the Land Use Element Goals and Policies: • Existing and draft goals/policies address: o Several types of land use o Soils and topography o Vegetation and wildlife o Air and noise pollution o Urban growth areas • Draft element o Updates wording of goals and policies o Continues general policy direction She described the process of reviewing the draft Land Use Element: • Three public meetings of Planning Board • Planning Board recommended version in packet as draft • Planning Board recognized may need tweaking, cleanup technical changes • Have not yet added a performance measure o Difficult to identify one thing that can be measured annually Packet Page 32 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 10 Next steps: • Public hearing – January 20 • Study session – January 27 • Open house – February 25 • Open house on entire Comprehensive Plan - spring/summer Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff and the Planning Board for doing a fabulous job on the Land Use Element. She asked why Westgate was not considered an activity center, recalling the Council recently approved a comprehensive change to the area. Ms. Hope answered it could be if the Council directs. The intent with the Comprehensive Plan update was a conservative approach of updating what exists in the current plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Stevens Hospital Master Plan would be removed and whether a subarea plan would be required from Swedish-Edmonds. Ms. Hope advised the Stevens Hospital Master Plan would be removed. The intent was to simplify the plan, remove outdated plans, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Washington State Ferries does not have Edmonds Crossing in their planning out to 2040, there is a permanent Sounder station and an alternatives study is planned to study conflicts with the train. Ms. Hope answered Edmonds Crossing was left in the Comprehensive Plan, revising language to indicate alternatives were being considered. If the Council directs, reference to Edmonds Crossing can be removed. She pointed out the Comprehensive Plan describes Edmonds Crossing but does not require anything to be done. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged this was a sensitive subject years ago, but some people who live in Esperance want to live in Edmonds. She asked whether consideration had been given to that area being a self-contained Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA). Ms. Hope answered that has been discussed; it is currently part of Edmonds Urban Growth Area (UGA). Councilmember Bloom commented there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan about pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. She asked why the Comprehensive Plan included Pt. Edwards but did not include emergency vehicle access. Ms. Hope answered the consultant plans to study that in the Transportation Element. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis about Edmonds Crossing, relaying he has always thought it was a bad concept because moving the ferry would make it invisible to most of the City. He agreed it was time to consider bringing Esperance into the City. With regard to access to the west side of the tracks, he pointed out in the past there was a bridge to Union Oil Park and possibly an easement exists to reinstate the bridge. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the City consider how much Esperance would contribute to the City’s growth targets. He recalled the development at Pt. Edwards contributed to those requirements and questioned how the remaining area to be developed would contribute toward growth targets. With regard to Edmonds Crossing, he said that project was not dead; it just did not have any funding. He envisioned any other location for the terminal in the mid-waterfront area would be very disruptive to the economic vitality and continuity of downtown. He suggested the funds allocated to study a trench be allocated to the Edmonds Crossing project. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Packet Page 33 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 11 7. CITY HALL EXTERIOR ATM CONCESSION AGREEMENT PUBLIC HEARING Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled the Council had a good discussion at last week’s study session and the packet includes staff’s written response to questions asked at the study session. With regard to the color of the cash machine; it was agreed the muted gray would fit the location and that is what the vendor provides. The location was proposed to be the alcove south of the main entrance to City Hall. Via conversations with the Museum, the sponsor of the Summer Market, it was decided the best location was the north alcove. There is power in that location and it is not a usable space for the market due to the fire hydrant. The market, City and vendor are satisfied with that location. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification regarding the location of the ATM machine. Mr. Williams answered it will be to the left when exiting City Hall in the northerly alcove closest to the entrance to the Chamber’s offices. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Daniel McCaleb, commented the Edmonds community has an immense amount of civic pride and takes pride in its beautification and quaint architecture. He suggested the Council consider the civic benefit that a large metal structure would have so close to the new memorial and whether the convenience outweighs the obvious visual detractor. Mobile ATMs provide the same service during the Garden Market, Saturday Market and Taste of Edmonds without an intrusive, permanent structure and those agreements provide significantly more monetary benefit to the City. The proposed agreement only provides 10% to the City; the mobile ATMs provide twice that amount. The proposed contract also obligates the City to five years. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the 5-year contract. Mr. Williams answered it is a 5-year contract but can be terminated with 48 hours’ notice. Councilmember Bloom inquired about mobile ATMs. Mr. Williams explained the same vendor has provided a mobile ATM for the market in the past. It is a considerable amount of work to set up and take down. It was felt this part of downtown could use access to a regular cash machine. He was not certain about the mobile ATM contract, assuring the intent of allowing an ATM was not for the revenue although he anticipated 10% on a permanent machine would generate more than 20% of a temporary machine. The benefit to the City is the ATM provides ready access to cash during events that generate tax revenue. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether one of large planters will be removed. Mr. Williams did not have the details; the Facilities Maintenance Manager Jim Stevens, Parks representatives and market representatives selected the location. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR AN ATM INSTALLATION OUTSIDE CITY HALL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8. APPROVAL OF SHAW LANE FINAL PLAT AT 8620 218TH ST. SW (FILE # PLN20120043) Planner Mike Clugston relayed this was discussed at last week’s study session. Councilmember Bloom subsequently submitted several questions for staff primarily regarding the preliminary plat; staff’s response is included as Exhibit. 3. Also included in the packet are the signed final plat (Exhibit 1) and the Packet Page 34 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 12 Approval Resolution (Exhibit 2). As explained at the study session, all the preliminary plat conditions have been met and the plat improvements have been installed and inspected. A 10-foot street dedication at 218th Street SW will be accepted with approval of the plat. This agenda item is approval of the Shaw Lane final plat; the decision regarding the preliminary plat was made by the Hearing Examiner several years ago. Councilmember Bloom referred to two fir trees along the Hepler property, acknowledging they have been removed and nothing could be done. The code stated trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible. It appeared from the record that Mr. Clugston made some effort to have the trees retained; the letter from Jeffrey Treiber, LSA, appeared to be what influenced the Hearing Examiner. The letter states the large evergreen trees in the south portion of Lot 4 and the north portion of Lot 6 are designated to be removed as the critical root zone severely impacts the building envelope for future residences, encroaching any significant distance into the root zone will impact the trees’ long term viability and perhaps create a dangerous situation. Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Clugston’s statement that typically every effort is made to protect roots of trees along the property line and a statement in the record that the property owner believes that clearing as shown on the revised plan shows the maximum tree retention feasible. While it appears Mr. Clugston was trying to save the trees, the Hearing Examiner took LSA’s representation that the property owner thought that was the maximum tree retention feasible. Mr. Clugston responded he cannot second guess the Hearing Examiner’s decision and did not know how he reached that conclusion. Exhibit 2 of last week’s packet, Preliminary Plat Staff Report and Attachments, reflects public comments received during the preliminary plat process from the Heplers and Connelleys who indicated the trees on the property line were an issue to them. Their concerns included maintenance of the trees. He read from the staff report, The evergreens adjacent to the Hepler's property are mature and encroaching over the property line anywhere from 5 to 20 feet based on the location of the cyclone fence. While Hepler is probably within his rights to maintain the encroaching trees on his side of the property line (approximately the fence), trimming the trees from the fence all the way to their tops would result in seriously disfigured and damaged trees. Mr. Clugston said the Hearing Examiner likely considered the comments submitted by the Heplers and Connelleys and determined although the City would usually retain the trees, the neighbors’ concerns could be addressed in his decision. He reiterated this was his assumption of the Hearing Examiner’s decision-making process. Councilmember Bloom referred to an email from the neighbors who stated the trees encroach on their property by hanging over their property, blocking the sun and creating large maintenance load due to falling leaves, branches and needles from the trees into their yard. She noted there appeared to be many more trees than only the two fir trees she was referring to. Mr. Clugston referred to Exhibit 2, Attachment 4 of last week’s packet, the preliminary clearing plan, shows approximately 9 trees on the eastern property line that were part of this discussion. Councilmember Bloom observed Mr. Clugston’s assumption was the Hearing Examiner believed the Heplers and Connellys were within their rights to cut everything to their property line. Mr. Clugston answered that was probably the case. He explained no permit would have been required to remove the trees if the Hepler, Connelleys and applicant wanted to remove the trees on their property as there are no critical areas or steep slopes. Single family zoned parcels without critical area can remove trees without permit under the current tree code. Councilmember Bloom asked if that applied to the tree overhang. Mr. Clugston answered the trunks of the subject trees were either on or very near the property line. The Connellys and Heplers’ concerns were the overhanging branches and maintenance issues. Packet Page 35 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 13 Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Clugston if he personally believed the maximum number of trees were retained that was feasible. Mr. Clugston answered his personal belief was not germane to this discussion but all things equal, as many were retained as was feasible given the plat and the neighbors’ concerns. Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Taraday stating at last week’s study session that nothing could be done because the trees were gone. City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided context, explaining the trees are a very small part of the bigger pictures. The issue before the Council is whether or not the applicant has complied with the conditions of the approval that the Hearing Examiner imposed on the applicant and whether the other final plat requirements have been met. Final plat is not an opportunity for the Council to exercise discretion; either the applicant has or has not done what they were supposed to do. Staff found the applicant has done what they were required to do and is recommending approval. With regard to trees and the decision by the Hearing Examiner which is not reviewable by the City Council tonight, Mr. Taraday explained that may inform future revisions to the tree code and this could be used an example of how the tree code works in Edmonds. Exploration of how the tree code works may be more germane as an agenda item to analyze tree code. Tonight’s agenda item is whether or not the applicant satisfied the requirements for final plat approval. Councilmember Bloom relayed her concern whether the Hearing Examiner actually required all trees to be retained to the maximum extent feasible; this is about protection of an environment asset. Mr. Taraday said that question is not properly before the City Council tonight. If the Council has concerns about the way the Hearing Examiner is doing his work that should be taken up with him during his annual report and/or during contract renewal. If there are questions regarding how the tree code works that should be discussed in the context of the tree code. Whatever the Hearing Examiner did, right or wrong, that is not before the Council tonight; the Council cannot review or change that decision tonight. Councilmember Bloom asked why final plats are presented to Council for approval. Mr. Taraday answered State law requires City Council action. All the discretionary decisions occur at the preliminary plat stage. Final plat approval by the City Council is a rubber stamp because the standards for final plat approval are very cut and dried and nondiscretionary. Councilmember Bloom summarized her concern was with the interpretation of the language in the code, trees must be retained to the maximum extent feasible. Her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s explanation was that cannot be discussed tonight but can be discussed with the Hearing Examiner during his annual report. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council could discuss it tonight but it was not germane to this agenda item. It would be more appropriately discussed as part of an agenda item regarding the tree code. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1332, APPROVING THE SIX LOT SHAW LANE FINAL PLAT. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom explained she abstained because she did not have enough information to determine that the maximum amount of trees that were retained was feasible. She understood this was not a discretionary decision but she could not approve the final plat. She suggested more information was needed to understand what went on but the Council has no authority to do anything. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her kindness in receiving the outcome of Sunday’s football game. He understood her husband’s accolades were not as loud. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Packet Page 36 of 394 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 14 Mayor Earling complimented Student Representative Eslami on his attire. Student Representative Eslami thanked the veterans for their service. Councilmember Mesaros commented it was good to hear the veterans speak. As a veteran himself, he was surprised at how emotional he got remembering his high school classmate. He reiterated his offer to be the City’s representative at the Super Bowl as he will be in Phoenix that day. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who sent condolences; they helped calm her husband down and he has now moved on to hockey. She thanked the veterans that came tonight, relaying the plaza will be beautiful. She offered her assistance with fundraising. Councilmember Johnson was very sympathetic to Councilmember Bloom’s concerns about final acceptance of the Shaw Lane subdivision. She acknowledged there was nothing the Council could do as the trees have been cut down. She suggested a discussion at a Council retreat or a study session about the development review process to help Councilmembers understand and identify any shortcomings in the process. She relayed the Google Earth view of the Shaw Lane site showed it was heavily wooded, approximately 75% wooded and it is a shame the end result was only a few trees remained. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported on the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Verdant office. She encouraged the public to stop by to see the options they offer. Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked the veterans who attended and spoke about the Veterans’ Plaza, envisioning it as an important piece of Edmonds history. She also said Go Hawks. Mayor Earling observed many felt a twinge during the Veterans’ Plaza presentation thinking about those who have been lost particularly in his age group in Vietnam and more recently in the Mid-East. The Veterans’ Plaza will provide an opportunity to reflect and remember. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 9:05 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i.) He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James and Deputy Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 10:29 p.m. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Packet Page 37 of 394 AM-7435 4. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #212553 through #212563 dated January 20, 2015 for $21,374.24 and claim checks #212564 through #212617 dated January 22, 2015 for 111,042.34. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61460 through #61470 for $476,624.22, benefit checks #61471 through #61479 and wire payments of $515,068.54 for the pay period January 1, 2015 through January 15, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,124,109.34 Fiscal Impact: Claims $132,416.58 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $476,624.22 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $515,068.54 Total Payroll $991,692.76 Attachments claim cks 01-20-15 claim cks 01-22-15 Packet Page 38 of 394 claim cks 01-22-15 Project Numbers 01-22-15 Payroll Summary 01-15-15 Payroll Benefit 01-15-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 01/22/2015 09:48 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 10:57 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/22/2015 12:05 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 02:00 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 01/22/2015 07:53 AM Final Approval Date: 01/22/2015 Packet Page 39 of 394 01/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 12:10:25PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212553 1/20/2015 072189 ACCESS 0853978 COURT SHERD FILES COURT SHERD FILES 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 212554 1/20/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11267 INV#11267 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B DEC 2014 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,762.71 Total :1,762.71 212555 1/20/2015 075089 COMPUCOM SYSTEMS 62569891 ADOBE ACROBAT XI PRO LICENSE FOR DEV SVC Adobe Acrobat XI Pro License - Qty 1 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 277.34 Total :277.34 212556 1/20/2015 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 123114 WWTP -OPERATOR CERTIFICATION RENEWAL James Nordquist, Cert #5627, Group II 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 30.00 Total :30.00 212557 1/20/2015 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC 08/27/2014 PRE EMPLOYMENT TESTINGS E1455748- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 211.00 E1440726- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 45.00 E1433922- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 139.00 E1434001- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 296.00 E1437055- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 139.00 E1437402- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 296.00 E1440759- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 45.00 1Page: Packet Page 40 of 394 01/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 12:10:25PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212557 1/20/2015 (Continued)007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E1455901- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 211.00 E1464241- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 133.00 E1464390- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 214.00 E1474403- Pre Employment Testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 55.00 Total :1,784.00 212558 1/20/2015 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 622033 WWTP - REPAIR/REPLACE, FACILITIES Exercise Room Floor 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 1,804.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 171.43 Total :1,975.93 212559 1/20/2015 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1AA.Pmt 7 E1AA.PMT 7 THRU 12/31/14 E1AA.Pmt 7 thru 12/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 1,491.54 Total :1,491.54 212560 1/20/2015 074507 SARAH CHO 011 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 652.00 Total :652.00 212561 1/20/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000378351 E4CA.ADDITIONAL SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E4CA.Additional Services thru 12/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 5,700.00 Total :5,700.00 212562 1/20/2015 075141 TREATMENT EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1282 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, MECHANICAL Aerzen Blower Audit 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 2,499.99 2Page: Packet Page 41 of 394 01/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 12:10:25PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212562 1/20/2015 (Continued)075141 TREATMENT EQUIPMENT COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 237.50 Total :2,737.49 212563 1/20/2015 062693 US BANK 2985 WWTP - DECEMBER 2014 CC supplies, facilities 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 993.33 repari/maintenance, mist eliminator 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 205.16 m071, offsite telemetry 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 695.95 training, Royce Napolitino 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 249.00 supplies, office 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 71.16 m071, offsite telemetry 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 695.95 canister vaccuum 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 512.07 training, Pamela Randolph 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 43.00 Fac Maint- Lamp Recycling Kit3405 FS 20- Certified Letter to Report a 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 6.49 Guardian Security - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Fac Maint- Lamp Recycling Kit 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 292.37 Ecolights NW - City Hall 2nd floor 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 946.08 PW - Door Handles 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 147.67 Total :4,913.23 Bank total :21,374.2411 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 3Page: Packet Page 42 of 394 01/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 12:10:25PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 21,374.24Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11 4Page: Packet Page 43 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212564 1/22/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 344615 WWTP - PEST CONTROL January Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94 Total :79.94 212565 1/22/2015 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 42133758 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 1/09/15 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,493.96 Total :1,493.96 212566 1/22/2015 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 19453 P&R PLAQUE FOR BENCH AT INTERURBAN TRAIL P&R PLAQUE FOR BENCH AT INTERURBAN TRAIL 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 160.79 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 15.28 Total :176.07 212567 1/22/2015 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ZN83 WWTP - MONTHLY NPDES monthly NPDES testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total :165.00 212568 1/22/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987820614 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987820615 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 1Page: Packet Page 44 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212568 1/22/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 97.97 Total :183.34 212569 1/22/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0691733-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2, Dyed Bulk fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,386.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 321.73 Total :3,708.46 212570 1/22/2015 067947 BROWNELLS INC 10672044.01 INV#10672044.01 ACCT#00557761 - EDMONDS 870 MAG SPRING RETAINER 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 9.60 MAG SPRING CORKSCREW REMOVER 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 22.99 GEN II VIPER SLING 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 27.69 MAG SPRING, POLICE 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 9.56 Total :69.84 212571 1/22/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14536715 Lease Council Office printer/copier Lease Council Office printer/copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 CANON COPIER CHARGES14536716 Canon copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33 Canon copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33 Canon copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89 2Page: Packet Page 45 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212571 1/22/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 INV#14536719 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD14536719 B/W METER USE 11/30-12/31/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 118.30 COLOR METER USE 11/30-12/31/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 89.77 MONTHLY COPY RENTAL (4) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 75.02 CITY CLERK'S C;OPIER LEASE14536720 Lease City Clerk's Copier 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE14536722 Recept. desk copier lease 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00414543146 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 Total :1,733.08 212572 1/22/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 215433 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 190.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 18.11 Total :208.71 3Page: Packet Page 46 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212573 1/22/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11249 LYNNDALE SKATE PARK MAINTENANCE ANNUAL C LYNNDALE SKATE PARK MAINTENANCE ANNUAL 001.000.64.576.80.51.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 212574 1/22/2015 075089 COMPUCOM SYSTEMS 62612160 ADOBE ACROBAT PROFESSIONAL 50 PK Adobe Acrobat Professional promo 50 pack 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 11,664.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 1,108.16 ADOBE ACROBAT XI PRO POLICE DEPT62612470 Adobe Acrobat XI Pro - Qty 3 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 759.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 72.19 Total :13,604.99 212575 1/22/2015 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100156273 WWTP - JANUARY JANITORIAL January 09 to 31 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 399.77 Total :399.77 212576 1/22/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3295970 PARKS CONCESSION RFP PARKS CONCESSION RFP ADVERTISING 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 99.00 Total :99.00 212577 1/22/2015 068190 DATEC INC 31800 INV#31800 - EDMONDS PD 3400mAH/7.2V BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 198.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 20.19 Total :232.69 4Page: Packet Page 47 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212578 1/22/2015 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 63.38 Total :63.38 212579 1/22/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3520 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 1/13 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 336.60 Total :336.60 212580 1/22/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2971150 PM HEX BOLT, HEX NUT, LANDSCAPE TIMBERS HEX BOLT, HEX NUT, LANDSCAPE TIMBERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 178.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.00 PM PLYWOOD AND FASTENERS2972866 PLYWOOD AND FASTENERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.93 Total :241.30 212581 1/22/2015 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 1001400526 P&R EDMONDS SHARE OF SWIM VOUCHER PRINTI P&R EDMONDS SHARE OF SWIM VOUCHER 001.000.64.571.24.49.00 303.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.24.49.00 28.81 Total :332.04 212582 1/22/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 145.42 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 446.91 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410 5Page: Packet Page 48 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212582 1/22/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 291.47 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,607.70 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 142.17 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,127.56 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 142.17 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,007.30 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 243.93 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 FAC SPRINKLER6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 397.99 6Page: Packet Page 49 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212582 1/22/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 142.17 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 249.50 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 SEAVIEW PARK6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 410.81 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 307.24 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-06040 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.02 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 272.46 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 970.18 YOST POOL6-08525 YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 473.61 Total :9,312.28 212583 1/22/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 109149 METER READING Meter Reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 17.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.67 7Page: Packet Page 50 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :19.262125831/22/2015 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 212584 1/22/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH608705 Legal Notice: Echelbarger PLN2012.2043 Legal Notice: Echelbarger PLN2012.2043 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 58.48 P&R LEGAL AD CONCESSIONS RFPEDH609779 P&R LEGAL AD CONCESSIONS RFP 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 36.12 NEWSPAPER ADEDH609783 Approval Design Veterans Plaza 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 36.12 Total :130.72 212585 1/22/2015 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 2015 PK LOT FEE TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Jan - 001.000.39.542.64.45.00 3,600.00 Total :3,600.00 212586 1/22/2015 069567 FOSSIL INDUSTRIES INC F64977 PM REPLACEMENT SIGNAGE AT MARINA BEACH PM REPLACEMENT SIGNAGE AT MARINA BEACH 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 242.00 Total :242.00 212587 1/22/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9185842 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 2,247.99 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 66.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 219.87 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB9194750 sample cell, 25X60mm 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 28.95 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 41.67 9.5% Sales Tax 8Page: Packet Page 51 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212587 1/22/2015 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 6.71 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB9194751 bearing, lbod, assembly 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 147.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 17.79 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 15.66 Total :2,792.03 212588 1/22/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5080771 PM SCREWS AND 4 PC PROBE 8TH & ALDER PAT PM SCREWS AND 4 PC PROBE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 89.69 PM TOTES, SCREWS, BATTERIES, PLIERS, PVC8022315 PM TOTES, SCREWS, BATTERIES, PLIERS, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 264.19 PM PLUNGER84929 PM PLUNGER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.66 Total :373.54 212589 1/22/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2567716 Green Copy paper for DSD Green Copy paper for DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 29.89 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2569872 date stamp 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 58.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 5.59 Total :94.33 212590 1/22/2015 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12661071 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 900.90 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 9Page: Packet Page 52 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212590 1/22/2015 (Continued)071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46 Total :913.82 212591 1/22/2015 075144 KINGSCOTE CHEMICALS INC 208744 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING bright dyes yellow/green 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 163.18 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 31.50 Total :194.68 212592 1/22/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 20548163 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL dead blow hammers 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 115.65 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.81 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL20592862 cogged v-belt 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 97.94 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.08 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL20836803 dead blow hammer 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 187.47 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 17.04 Total :432.99 212593 1/22/2015 069471 NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, TRAINING CENTERLEE FEB 10 CLASS JUSTIN LEE, EDMONDS PD, FEB 10-12 CLASS LATERAL VASCULAR INSTRUCTOR COURSE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 Total :300.00 212594 1/22/2015 063034 NCL 349524 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY 10Page: Packet Page 53 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212594 1/22/2015 (Continued)063034 NCL laboratory supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 365.40 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 34.13 Total :399.53 212595 1/22/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6271434.001 WWTP - SCADA & PLC Micrologix 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,500.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 142.57 Total :1,643.32 212596 1/22/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 58439 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE sodium bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,105.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 104.98 Total :1,209.98 212597 1/22/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 531 Historic Preservation Com Minutes 1/8/15 Historic Preservation Com Minutes 1/8/15 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 148.50 Total :148.50 212598 1/22/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 002018 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 86.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.23 PM COPY PAPER029357 PM COPY PAPER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.18 11Page: Packet Page 54 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212598 1/22/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC PM COPY PAPER029480 PM COPY PAPER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 221.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.00 Total :350.52 212599 1/22/2015 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 142042 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS wilson clay 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,960.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 190.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 186.20 Total :2,336.95 212600 1/22/2015 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP P1504-3 WWTP - PRO SERVICE, TASK ORDER 4.14 Task order 2.14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 775.00 Task order 3.14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5,580.00 Total :6,355.00 212601 1/22/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000151641 MARKER, INSCRIPTION & BASE-LOWELL MARKER, INSCRIPTION & BASE-LOWELL 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 1,217.00 Total :1,217.00 212602 1/22/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 93938697 Lease Eng MPC6000 copier/printer Lease Eng MPC6000 copier/printer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 DSD PSRO 907EX copier/printer93938701 DSD PSRO 907EX copier/printer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total :1,270.48 12Page: Packet Page 55 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212603 1/22/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS OE0001463A8594 PM PAINT PM PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.16 Total :36.40 212604 1/22/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 15-101 Q4-14 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q4-14 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 12,643.17 Total :12,643.17 212605 1/22/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-1403-8 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 107.00 SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4 SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 311.38 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1341 9TH AVE N2022-5062-7 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1341 9TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.98 Total :453.36 212606 1/22/2015 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 E7AC.PUD E7AC - 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR-RELOCATE EL E7AC - 228th St. SW Corridor630-00012 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 26,560.00 Total :26,560.00 212607 1/22/2015 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 56626 INV#56626 - EDMONDS PD LOCKER MAGNET - HWANG 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 MAGNETIC TAG - HWANG 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.75 9.5% Sales Tax 13Page: Packet Page 56 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212607 1/22/2015 (Continued)038100 SNO-KING STAMP 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.26 Total :14.51 212608 1/22/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP - 200 2ND AVE S, ASH DISPOSAL wwtp 200 2nd Ave S, Ash Disposal 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,153.32 Total :3,153.32 212609 1/22/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50871678 WWTP- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Clarifier inspection and report 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 2,535.63 Total :2,535.63 212610 1/22/2015 075146 THE ESTATE OF LOUIS J VIGNOLI 4-31175 #500020459-KM UTILITY REFUND #500020459-KM Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 157.37 Total :157.37 212611 1/22/2015 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 264 2015 WRPA CONF REGISTR: HITE & RANKINS 2015 WRPA CONF REG:RANKINS 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 269.00 2015 WRPA CONF REG:HITE 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 269.00 Total :538.00 212612 1/22/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-002 PM TREE MAINTENANCE-PINE RIDGE PARK PM TREE MAINTENANCE-PINE RIDGE PARK 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 450.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 42.75 PM TREE MAINTENANCE-PARKS GREEN BELT AREI15-008 PM TREE MAINTENANCE-PARKS GREEN BELT 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 570.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 54.15 14Page: Packet Page 57 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,116.902126121/22/2015 067195 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 212613 1/22/2015 045912 WASPC 2015-00239 INV 2015-00239 EDMONDS PD - COMPAAN ACTIVE DUES CATEGORY E - COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 305.00 Total :305.00 212614 1/22/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6552 P&R 1000 REGULAR ENVELOPES P&R 1000 REGULAR ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 98.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.39 Total :108.28 212615 1/22/2015 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 8244 INV#8244 - EDMONDS PD 2700M MTS RADIO BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1,176.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 111.72 Total :1,287.72 212616 1/22/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 10943 PM DOUGLAS FIR PM DOUGLAS FIR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 390.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.05 PM KINNIKINICK10944 PM KINNIKINICK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 174.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.53 Total :617.58 212617 1/22/2015 045565 WSPCA WSPCA 2015 ROBINSON WSPCA 2015 DUES - JASON ROBINSON - EDMON REGULAR DUES 2015 - JASON ROBINSON 001.000.41.521.26.49.00 50.00 15Page: Packet Page 58 of 394 01/22/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:37:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :50.002126171/22/2015 045565 045565 WSPCA Bank total :111,042.3454 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 111,042.34Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report54 16Page: Packet Page 59 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 60 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 61 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 62 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 63 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project ENG E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 64 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 65 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 66 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 67 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR c461 E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR c462 E4CD 220th Street Overlay Project STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 68 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 69 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 70 of 394 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 1/21/2015Packet Page 71 of 394 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 739 (01/01/2015 to 01/15/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 10% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS00c1 0.00 256.35 NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 32.00 0.00 NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 108.00 0.00 SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 72.50 1,624.24 SICK LEAVESICK121 859.50 28,388.28 VACATIONVACATION122 956.06 35,483.82 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 128.75 4,490.70 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 125.96 4,267.32 Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 29.00 1,153.61 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 9.00 287.34 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 10.00 399.11 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 36.00 1,408.18 COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS152 0.38 8.56 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 43.88 2,054.61 SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 1.91 43.02 VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 11.90 268.03 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 49.00 2,370.17 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 14,761.98 519,467.83 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS193 72.00 2,085.16 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 88.00 2,912.50 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 27.50 987.14 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 99.63 4,150.67 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 60.00 2,789.57 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 8.00 706.90 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 183.75 11,892.36 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 44.25 2,717.13 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 13.50 1,046.40 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 633.16 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 77.25 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 84.75 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 3.50 0.00 Holiday Compensatory Time 1.5COMP HOURS607 9.00 0.00 ACCRUED VACATIONVACATION900 240.00 0.00 01/22/2015 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 72 of 394 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 739 (01/01/2015 to 01/15/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description ACCRUED SICK LEAVESICK901 -480.00 0.00 BOOT ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS902 0.00 11,229.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70 Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Repayment AgreementREGULAR HOURScell 0.00 -60.96 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,243.02 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 780.22 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 718.40 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,639.11 FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 64.00 0.00 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,215.80 42,165.45 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 95.43 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,760.37 LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 407.75 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 822.00 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,513.34 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 157.65 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 302.98 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 873.74 Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 86.45 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,683.52 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 153.70 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78 VACATION ADD BACKVACATIONvab 694.30 0.00 01/22/2015 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 73 of 394 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 739 (01/01/2015 to 01/15/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Total Net Pay:$476,624.22 $706,702.75 19,741.05 01/22/2015 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 74 of 394 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 739 - 01/01/2015 to 01/15/2015 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61471 01/20/2015 all ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES 378.71 0.00 61472 01/20/2015 dlni DEPARTMENT OF L & I 453.10 0.00 61473 01/20/2015 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,749.50 0.00 61474 01/20/2015 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00 61475 01/20/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 828.41 0.00 61476 01/20/2015 sc SNOHOMISH COUNTY COURT 776.72 0.00 61477 01/20/2015 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,210.00 0.00 61478 01/20/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,499.51 0.00 61479 01/20/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 87,272.59 0.00 98,605.04 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2166 01/20/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 35.00 0.00 2170 01/20/2015 awc AWC 294,647.25 0.00 2172 01/20/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 72.00 0.00 2173 01/20/2015 us US BANK 95,956.65 0.00 2174 01/20/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,595.00 0.00 2177 01/20/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,157.60 0.00 416,463.50 0.00 515,068.54 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 11/22/2015 Packet Page 75 of 394 AM-7438 6. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Senior Center Recommendation Council authorize Mayor to sign Option to Lease and long term Ground Lease with Senior Center. Previous Council Action City Council Passed Resolution 1313 on March 18, 2014 supporting rebuilding of the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location. City Council unanimously approved having staff negotiate a lease with the Senior Center on October 21, 2014. On December 9th, the City Council had a study session about the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease and gave staff direction. Narrative On December 9th, the City Council had an extensive discussion about the proposal brought forth by the Edmonds Senior Center requesting an Option to Lease and a long term Ground Lease Agreement. After direction was given, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director and City Attorney worked with the Senior Center to review and revise these proposals. Aside from clarifying language, the most substantive changes to the original proposal include: 1. The Lease Agreement contains a nominal $10 per year, and no more. The Council discussed the possibility and/or longer term goal of impacting the $60,000 per year operational funds it allocates each year, as opposed to charging for the land. 2. The City and Senior Center worked out a usage that is mutually agreeable in section 1.2.2. 3. The City added language to protect the desire of Council to decide on the design and footprint of the building ( Section 4.1.1). 4. The City added clarifying language that the Park area surrounding the Senior Center is under control of the City, and accessible by the public ( 5.4.4). 5. The City added language for the Senior Center to provide a performance bond ( section 4.3). Packet Page 76 of 394 6. The City and Senior Center mutually agreed, and added language to share the cost of any parking study needed, the design and construction of the parking lot ( 5.4.1 and 5.4.2). 7. The City revised the insurance requirements to be in alignment with the WCIA recommendations for insurance( section 6). 8. At the Council’s request, added termination language ( section 7.1.2.1). Attachments Option to Lease Ground Lease Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 02:00 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/22/2015 02:42 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 03:26 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 01/22/2015 01:11 PM Final Approval Date: 01/22/2015 Packet Page 77 of 394 1 BNC\16830\0002\00764457.V1 OPTION TO LEASE THIS OPTION TO LEASE (this “Option”) is made and entered into as of this _____ day of _________________, 2014, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, ( the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Optionee desires to obtain an Option To Lease certain real property from the City, which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Property”), and which lease terms and conditions are specified in the Ground Lease attached hereto as Exhibit B the “Ground Lease”); and WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together with two five-year extension periods (the “Current Lease”). WHEREAS, the Current Lease would be superseded by the Ground Lease which is the subject of the Option. WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into an Option To Lease the Property to Optionee for development and operation of a Senior Center and related uses. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms, covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Option, the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property (“Option”) for the Term (as defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the Ground Lease. 2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties, the term (“Term”) of this Option shall commence on February 1, 2015 (“Commencement Date”) and shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2019; provided, however, Optionee, in its sole and absolute discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen (18) Months, if Optionee has reached the fundraising thresholds specified in Section 5 below. Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee to the City requesting such extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has reached the fundraising threshold necessary for extension. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, Optionee’s right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate and be of no further force and effect if the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, before the expiration of the Term. 3. OPTIONEE’S PROJECT: Optionee’s development is a non-profit community resource center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without limitation, Packet Page 78 of 394 2 BNC\16830\0002\00764457.V1 operation of a thrift store and café along with programs serving poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors. Optionee also understands that this facility is to be used as a Community Center benefitting the whole community. Optionee and the City will define terms for City use in the Ground Lease Agreement. The Optionee may, from time to time, utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to, weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities. 4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Option To Lease (the “Option consideration”). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes and delivers the Option To Lease. 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option until it has commitments, through private donations, grants and other sources (not including city funds), for $7,462,500 which is 75% of the projected cost of the new center and parking lot. 6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth in this Option have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, inserting the Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option as of the date and the year first above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Printed Name: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation By: Printed Name: Printed Title: Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY By: Printed Name: Attest: CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CLERK By:___________________________________ Printed Name:__________________________ Packet Page 79 of 394 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 GROUND LEASE THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Packet Page 80 of 394 i i COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................... ii GROUND LEASE ......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .......................................................... 1 SECTION 2. TERM..................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3. RENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS ............................................... 3 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS ...................................................... 5 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE ............................................................................... 7 SECTION 7. DEFAULT ........................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 11 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................. 12 Packet Page 81 of 394 ii ii COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description Packet Page 82 of 394 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 GROUND LEASE CITY OF EDMONDS/EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this “Lease”), effective the ___ day of __________, 201__ (“Effective Date”) is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “City”) and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the “Senior Center”). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008, the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease). WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses the same real property as this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the “Property”). The Property consists of 2.63 acres. As used in this Lease, the term “Improvements” shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively “Parking Lot”), landscaping and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of operating a non- profit community resource center serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom are utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. Packet Page 83 of 394 2 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be given access to the building so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. The City will be allowed use Monday through Thursday, 4:00 pm – close, and other times as mutually agreed upon with the Lessee. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on-going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party’s program needs during that party’s first-priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first- priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the building are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City’s reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease (“Lease Term”) shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on _______, 20__, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center’s operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center’s mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the Packet Page 84 of 394 3 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property’s functionality as a park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City’s regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City’s regulatory discretion is limited. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider, and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility’s footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will Packet Page 85 of 394 4 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center’s construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as-built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Senior Center Improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Senior Center Improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Senior Center Improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may Packet Page 86 of 394 5 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of extending any existing utility lines into the Property; the Property, as made available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessar y to achieve all of the above. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to senior center’s sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center’s commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. 5.4 Parking Lot Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 Parking Lot Design. The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot that meets the requirements for the Senior Center’s Building as well as the City’s Regional Park facilities. The parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (100) parking spaces but the final number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken, if needed, by the City and Senior Center, jointly. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City’s Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as Packet Page 87 of 394 6 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Senior Center Property and the City’s Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for construction including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be developed and permitted in coordination with the Senior Center/Community Center facility, including but not limited to the schematic design and design development approval process set forth in Section 4.1, above. 5.4.2 Parking Lot Construction. The City and Senior Center shall share equally in the cost construction of the Parking Lot on the Property according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Senior Center’s contractor shall build the Parking Lot as part of Senior Center’s construction of its Building and related improvements, with the City shall pay its share. The Parking Lot must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center’s Building so that it is complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. Except as specified herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the City shall take reasonable steps to do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Any repair on the Property outside of that described in Section 5.4.3, below, shall be the Senior Center's responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense. 5.4.3 Parking Lot Maintenance and Repair. The City and the Senior Center shall share equal responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot after its initial construction. The City and Senior Center shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot to good condition during the Lease Term, the City and Senior Center shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Senior Center’s Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and has been designated a regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds surrounding the Senior Center, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). This park area will be within the limited control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds surrounding the facility may constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds unless it has obtained the applicable event permit from the City. The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City’s allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building ( i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). Packet Page 88 of 394 7 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center’s use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Senior Center’s business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or about the Premises, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center’s operation and use of the leased Premises. Lessee’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Lessee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Packet Page 89 of 394 8 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its Packet Page 90 of 394 9 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non-owned vehicles on and around the Property. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center’s facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub- subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days’ notice of Packet Page 91 of 394 10 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’ notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach, terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand. SECTION 7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center’s utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center’s default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: Packet Page 92 of 394 11 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center’s right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center’s right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord’s right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center’s default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City’s obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center’s execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center’s legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor’s rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. Packet Page 93 of 394 12 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center’s authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City’s execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City’s authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: Packet Page 94 of 394 13 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: City Clerk And to Senior Center at: Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. Packet Page 95 of 394 14 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker’s commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non-binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety. Packet Page 96 of 394 15 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the parties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. Packet Page 97 of 394 16 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: LESSOR: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY OF EDMONDS By: Its: By: David Earling As Its Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: __________________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Counsel for the City of Edmonds STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ____________________________________ PRINTED NAME: ___________________ NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: _______________ Packet Page 98 of 394 17 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that __________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ____________________________________ PRINTED NAME: ___________________ NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: _______________ Packet Page 99 of 394 18 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address 220 RAILROAD AVE , EDMONDS, WA 98020-4133 Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 00W 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51*23 00W ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 00E ALG MEA LN 288.33FT THN47*32 00W 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 00W ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 00E 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 Packet Page 100 of 394 AM-7428 7. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation of Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka EDBID) Grants Program Recommendation Forward to 2/3/15 Council Business Meeting for approval. Previous Council Action No previous Council action has been taken; however, during its review of the EDBID proposed 2015 Work Program and Budget on 11/10/14 and 11/18/14, City Council expressly requested that this item be presented separately for review and approval. Narrative As approved by City Council on 11/18/14, the EDBID 2015 Work Program and Budget includes a proposed Grants Program. During their review of the Work Program on both 11/10/14 and 11/18/14, Councilmembers raised questions and expressed concerns about this program (including legal parameters, administrative matters, whether all grants funds would have to be expended each year, etc.) to be further researched by staff. A motion to eliminate this program from the Work Program was voted down 6-1, while a follow-on motionwas approved unanimously to require that "each proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030 prior to award of a grant." (Please see attached Minutes of the 11/10/14, pages 3-7, and 11/18/14, pages 14-18, Council meetings for reference.) In addition, for these reasons, City Council requested that the proposed Grants Program be brought back for further review before implementation. The currently proposed Grants Program has been thoroughly reviewed and vetted by City staff. The program is offered as a pilot program and will be analyzed and revisited after a year to be considered for continuation. The program includes two options: a small grants program for requests of up to $1,500, offered quarterly; and a partnership program for requests of $5,000, requiring matching funds, and offered semi-annually. The purpose of the Grants Program, as stated in the attached document is to "...help harness the power of our local business community. The Grants program utilizes a grassroots approach to identify projects and allocate funds for approved grants." Please see the Grants Program document, presented by Ed!, for project categories, criteria and process steps. Packet Page 101 of 394 Attachments Council minutes 11-10-14 Council Minutes 11-18-14 Ed! Grants Program 2015 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/21/2015 03:19 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/21/2015 03:22 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 08:41 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 01/20/2015 03:04 PM Final Approval Date: 01/22/2015 Packet Page 102 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 1 Special Meeting EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Study Session November 10, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev. & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Deb Sharp, Accountant Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211337 THROUGH #211468 DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2014 FOR $1,747,604.72. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61259 THROUGH #61271 FOR $466,539.20, BENEFIT CHECKS #61272 THROUGH #61280 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $398,232.21 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 16, 2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2014 Packet Page 103 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 2 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOSTEIN E. KALVOY ($383.00) D. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND SELL A SCRAP CAR TO PICK-N-PULL E. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY EQUIPMENT F. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed Dave Page, who was unable to attend tonight shared his views on the following: they would like to have a public hearing after the Council discusses budget when further information is available regarding amendments, etc. He recalled that had been past practice, last year there were three opportunities, two discussion periods during which public comment was taken and public hearing. He expressed concern there been little Council discussion regarding the budget or proposed changes to the budget. Phil Lovell, Edmonds, spoke regarding the proposed concept of a train trench for the BNSF tracks through the waterfront area. He relayed his background, registered civil engineer, retired 11 years ago as a vice president from the 4th largest general contractor in the United States, a 37-year career with a company that specializes in general contracting, construction management and procurement, heavy construction, consulting, insurance and risk management in both public and private arenas. While retired he remains active in the industry in various consulting, advisory and educational capacities. A train trench is very expensive, most challenging from an engineering standpoint and does not solve all Edmonds’ waterfront traffic problems. It does not address the ferry queuing problem; a better solution would be to add a down ramp to the west side of the tracks within the current Edmonds Crossing concept. That plan would meet most of the needs without tearing up the town to build it. He urged the Council to study as many track crossing ideas as possible before supporting one solution/concept. Such studies must be expanded to include input from other significant stakeholders such as the county, state, railroad, Port, WSDOT, environmental authorities, WSF, and commercial interests in that area. He urged broader studies considering all major aspects long with pros, cons and feasibility. The recently completed study of the train trench by an outside professional consulting group, available on City’s website under News of Interest, covers many of environmental and engineering challenges that must be addressed and provides a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate. He studied and wrote on the same subject last July; he also had a ROM estimate prepared by his former employer which estimate falls within the cost range in Tetra Tech report. He offered to assist the City and Council in any way he could with regard to this issue. Brent Malgarin, referred to July 27, 2011 KOMO News where it was stated the committee working to establish the Business Improvement District (BID) has reached 50% of signatures needed to present to the City Council. RCW 35.87A.020, Legislative Authority, states only the City Council can start a BID. RCW 35.87A.030 states an initiation petition or resolution methods can be used to start a BID. Seattle started a BID in the Pioneer Square area with the support of 60%; and the Council subsequently changed it to the resolution method via Seattle Resolution 31481. Edmonds Resolution 1284 states RCW 35.87A.030 authorizes the City Council to initiate a BID by resolution in lieu of petition. A petition was presented but struck down by the resolution method. The petition was presented to the Clerk November 21 and the Council held its meeting on November 27. If only the City Council can request the resolution method; he questioned how Resolution 1284 was considered by the Council before the Council had an opportunity to review the petition. Resolution 1285 reaffirms the resolution method. Ordinance 3909 Packet Page 104 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 3 refers to the petition but because it had been struck down, it was irrelevant. The ordinance does not state that Edmonds was pursuing a BID by the resolution method nor was the public notified that the Council was pursuing a BID by resolution method. RCW 35.87A.060 states 50% of the people if they know the method of resolution can protest and stop it; since no one was informed of the resolution method, it was not protested. There are no City records to refute that. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the City hire Mr. Lovell part-time as he is well educated on the subject, and he admired his tenacity and interest in the subject. He recalled on October 28 Councilmember Johnson distributed a portion of a restoration plan that identified the possibility of relocating the senior center parking lot to restore the beach habitat. While a wonderful thought, that idea puts the possibility of a new senior center building in jeopardy because the building needs a lot of parking; the Edmonds Senior Center Feasibility Study states the need for 100 parking spaces. He did not favor eliminating the parking lot to restore the beach. With regard to the Sunset Walkway, he pointed out it is still listed as a combination pathway but most people do not want bicycles and skateboards mixed with pedestrians on a pathway. There is not enough room on Sunset Avenue to do everything that is planned; the new parking design is dangerous for backing and there is no place for bicycles because the bicycle lane was eliminated. He summarized a problem was created in trying to create something else. Council President Buckshnis read an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, that asked the Council to consider the following: 1) budget the entire amount needed to complete the rewrite of the ECDC as soon as possible, no later than December 31, 2015, and 2) budget the appropriate amount to also complete the entire rewrite of the ECC no later than December 31, 2015. Both should be contingent on a well- documented plan of action that clarifies how the work will be completed and who is responsible for completion and regular progress updates should be required. He suggested contracting the work out to a firm that specializes in writing great codes and recommended considering the process used by Lake Oswego, Oregon, when they faced similar challenges. The rewrite will increase efficiency and pay for the related cost. The City must establish a legal foundation that supports a high level of government service. A critical component of this legal foundation is a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy to administer code. He questioned why issues such as Westgate were prioritized prior to correcting the legal foundation of the code, a code known to be a mess going back to at least 2000. He referred to a June 23, 2012 email to the City Council and Planning Board in which he requested updating, clarifying and correcting the code be an extremely high priority. The condition of the code has resulted in much waste of public and private resources and will continue to do so. He urged the Council to make rewriting code a priority, reiterating it was to have been addressed long ago. 5. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015 Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the City Council approved the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) in January 2013. One of the requirements was that they present a work plan and budget for the following year by October 1 which was accomplished. Pam Stuller, EDBID Advisory Board Member, provided a list of the Advisory Board Members: • David Arista, Arista Wine Cellars • Robert Boehlke, Housewares • Natalie-Pascale Boisseau, Innate Radiance Acupuncture • Juliana Van Buskirk, Edward Jones • Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering • Sally Merck, Merck Counseling • Paul Rucker, Saetia • Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds Bookshop Packet Page 105 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 4 • Jordana Turner, Edmonds Massage and Bodywork • Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee • Kim Wahl, Reliable Floors Ms. Stuller reviewed the 2014 Work Plan Implementation: • Non-profit 501(c)3 status from IRS • Brand creation, name and logo • Optimized website – hope to launch later this month • Collaboration – Edmonds Community College, Edmonds-Woodway High School IB, and Friends! Lunch • Member Engagement – annual meeting, email and mail outreach, small grant program • Appearance & Environment – signage • Encourage walkability – courtesy umbrellas in 40 locations • Direct Mail Holiday Campaign, free Saturday holiday trolley, free family holiday movies and other holiday activities • Business Resources – business seminar She provided visuals including a sample website, illustrations, logo and umbrellas. Cadence Clyborne, Treasurer, EDBID Advisory Board, presented the 2015 Proposed Work Plan: • Non-profit Organization and Agency Agreement o Begin conversation with the City in 2015 regarding potential agency agreement between the City and the 501(c)3 to provide management and administrative services for the EDBID • Administration o Website hosting o Hiring part-time administrative person o Legal o Accounting o Supplies • Assessment & Evaluation o Research effective analysis tools to evaluate programs that have implemented to ensure providing benefit • Member Engagement and Outreach o Annual meeting in April • Friends of Ed! o Biannual meetings with organizations who have a vested interest in the downtown core to improve efficiency and avoid redundancy • Marketing o Brand rollout o Market totes for farmers market o New business welcome kit o Window clings o Consistent messaging o Potential Local First campaign • Professional Business Resources o Seminars to help members with web optimization and social media • Parking o Explore ideas and solutions o Focus on walkability versus drivability o Signage to existing and afterhours parking o Educating businesses about where park Packet Page 106 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 5 • Appearance & Environment o Vitality of core o Possible projects the EDBID could partner on include: Public restrooms Crosswalk safety Beautification Improved alley appearance Vacant storefront improvement • Small Grants Program o Projects that fulfill the mission of the Alliance and scope of work o Not intended to promote individual businesses or members o Researching best way to implement such a program and whether it is feasible • Research Potential Boundary Adjustment o Ordinance allows up to a 10% adjustment annually o Research a potential adjustment and determine interest in potential new members o City Council decision Ms. Clyborne reviewed 2015 proposed budgeted expenditures: Estimated revenue $89,000 Estimated expenditures • Administration 17,000 • Marking 22,000 • Member Engagement & Outreach 5,000 • Professional Business Resources 10,000 • Small grants 10,000 • Appearance and environment 20,000 • Total Estimated Expenditures $84,000 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how a boundary adjustment would be created, whether businesses would come to the EDBID or the EDBID would go to them or both. Ms. Clyborne answered the ordinance allows up to a 10% increase and it must be contiguous with the existing boundaries. The EDBID would determine an area to target and then do outreach to those businesses to determine if there is significant support for becoming part of the EDBID. If there is support, the EDBID would come to the City Council with that research. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was a requirement for a certain percentage of interest in joining the EDBID. Ms. Clyborne answered that has not yet been vetted and is one of the reasons it is in the work plan. Discussions have been that it would be a majority of business owners. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the budget for the small grants program also covered hiring someone. Ms. Clyborne the $10,000 is to fund grants that members apply for to do projects that promote the scope of work and mission of the EDBID. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she misunderstood and thought the small grants program was to apply for grants. Councilmember Johnson expressed her appreciation for the hard work done over past two years and recognized a number of EDBID members in audience. She noted there was a great deal of overlap between the Strategic Action Plan and many of the EDBID’s activities which will help lighten Mr. Dougherty’s workload. Council President Buckshnis agreed the EDBID had done a good job but expressed concern about their accounting. She requested the EDBID provide the Council a comparison of the current and past budget and actuals in a regular financial format. She noted the 501(c)3 must be a separate set of books. Ms. Packet Page 107 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 6 Clyborne assured that information was available and can be provided to the Council as well as included in future annual presentations. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many members there are in the EDBID. Ms. Stuller answered there are slightly less than 350. Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Johnson’s comments, it is great to see this group coming together and working to improve the downtown and promote business and a place where people can enjoy doing their commerce. Councilmember Petso referred to public comment tonight regarding whether the City provided public notice that the EDBID would be formed via the resolution method. She asked whether that notice was required and whether it was provided. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the BID process can start either with a petition or a resolution. While there was a substantial effort put into collecting signatures for a petition, it was realized in course of the review of those signatures that it would not meet the legal standard for a petition and it was recommended the process be initiated by resolution which the Council did with Resolution 1284. Resolution 1285 stated the intent to initiate a BID, set forth the proposed uses and projects, estimated the levy rate, estimated the budget at $86,000, and established a public hearing for January 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. To his knowledge the public hearing was advertised as required. Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3909 in which the petition method is mentioned in the first whereas clause but the second whereas clause references Resolution 1284 and the third whereas clause references Resolution 1285. Ordinance 3909, which formed BID and created new Chapter 3.75, was adopted by the City Council in early 2013. Councilmember Petso referred to the small grant program and asked if the grants are provided for things the BID could have done anyway, items that are consistent with their mission, whether it was simply an accounting entry. She asked whether the existence of small grant program created a legal problem for the City or the EDBID. Mr. Taraday answered the EDBID has to spend money for the purposes set forth in Chapter 3.75.030; as long as that is done, they are in compliance with the law. Mr. Doherty relayed he counseled Pascale Boisseau, who is overseeing the small grant program, to stay away from direct grants to property owners or business owners for their own projects and to stay with general programs/projects that fulfill the EDBID purposes and mission. There was discussion at a EDBID meeting that the volunteer board members have only so much bandwidth to take on projects; if a business owner wanted to take on a project such as more flowers, musicians during holidays/summer, or something else that was not currently offered, they could offer to spearhead the program and request funding from the EDBID. He summarized it was more than accounting; it was capacitating another member to do something that fulfills the EDBID’s mission. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Taraday to explain the effect of the resolution method on the operation of the EDBID from a legal standpoint. Mr. Taraday answered the method of initiation, whether petition or resolution, makes no difference. Either method of initiation still requires the next step, a resolution of intention to establish, a hearing and adoption by ordinance. In his opinion it was a distinction without a difference; it was not a meaningful distinction whether it was initiated by a petition or resolution. He recalled working with former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, who wanted to convey to the City Council that while some of the signatures were not usable for legal purposes, there was substantial community support for the BID and that was the reason for the reference to the petition and the signatures gathered notwithstanding the fact that the BID was being initiated by resolution. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the City was wholly and totally responsible for the functioning of the EDBID. Mr. Taraday read from the statute, the legislative authority of the City shall have sole discretion as to how the revenue derived from the special assessments is to be used within the scope of the purposes. Councilmember Bloom commented if the Council has sole discretion, it would Packet Page 108 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 7 behoove the Council to look at the work plan very carefully to ensure it reflects the wishes of the membership that are being assessed. Councilmember Bloom recalled when the auditors were here, she asked who was responsible for the EDBID budget and for publishing the budget due to a question asked by an EDBID member regarding why the budget was not published on the EDBID website. Her understanding was the auditor said the EDBID is not an independently functioning body from the City. Finance Director Scott James answered that was his understanding. Councilmember Bloom asked what that meant from Mr. James’ perspective. Mr. James responded similar to this year, the EDBID presented their 2014 budget and work plan to the City Council. It was his understanding the 2014 budget was ratified by the Council, giving the EDBID budget authority, via their presentation to the Council. He assumed that was the EDBID’s intent tonight by presenting their estimated revenue and estimated expenditures. Council President Buckshnis requested Mr. Doherty rewrite the agenda memo for next week’s agenda to make it easier to read and describe the potential amendments and the EDBID’s responses. She suggested any other questions also be added to the agenda memo. Council President Buckshnis relayed a question from citizens whether there is a conflict of interest for Councilmembers who are members of the EDBID. Mr. Taraday responded the relationship between a Councilmember’s business, the EDBID and the vote to approve the EDBID’s budget are so tangentially related that it would not violate the special benefit rules that prohibit votes on contracts. Councilmember Johnson observed there has been a great deal of discussion about a public restroom in the downtown area. If it were funded by the EDBID, it would take five years of their budget to accomplish. She asked whether there had been any discussion at the executive level about downtown restrooms, recalling a recent presentation at the Economic Development Commission (EDC) that identified approximately ten public restrooms on the parameter of EDBID. Ms. Stuller explained John Dewhirst, EDC, presented to the EDBID. The EDBID sees this as a great opportunity to collaborate on a directory of public restrooms and/or businesses that are willing to share their restrooms publicly. The EDBID is interested in researching other creative solutions rather than building a new structure. If there were a push to construct public restrooms, the EDBID would be interested in contributing but it would not be a sole function of the EDBID. There are many businesses willing to share their restrooms with customers. Councilmember Johnson suggested a signage program with a restroom logo. Council President Buckshnis suggested the EDBID not get involved in capital programs of that nature and did not expect the EDBID to be responsible for constructing downtown restrooms. Although she appreciated the comment that the small grant program will not benefit individual businesses, Councilmember Petso said it is not actually in any of the documentation. She requested the Council be notified when the specifics of the grant program are developed. Ms. Stuller agreed that would be done. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on as an agenda item on a future agenda. 6. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY Police Chief Al Compaan explained the agreement with Snohomish County is a three year agreement that would take effect January 1, 2015. There is an option for two additional three year terms with a commensurate rate adjustment over the term of the agreement. The City does the majority of its bookings with Snohomish County and it is an important part of the City’s overall criminal justice effort. The budget for jail and prisoner care in the 2015 budget is $650,000 in Non-Departmental. Packet Page 109 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 8 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any of the cost is recouped for people who use the facilities. Chief Compaan answered generally no; some is recouped via work release or home monitoring. Councilmember Petso asked the percentage increase in costs under the new contract. Chief Compaan answered the rates are delineated in the agenda memo, an increase in booking fees and daily housing fees. The 2014 budget was $486,000; the 2015 budget is $650,000. Councilmember Petso asked whether that entire increase was linked to the Snohomish County contract. Chief Compaan answered yes. Councilmember Petso asked whether he was confident of the justification for the increases. Chief Compaan answered the City is subject to what Snohomish County presents. Snohomish County has had tremendous costs in prisoner medical and mental health care. To be proactive, Snohomish County is trying to increase the overall level of care in an effort to mitigate deaths or serious medical issues in the jail. Councilmember Petso observed it was a very large percentage increase and asked whether there were options. Chief Compaan advised the next agenda item is an option. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained if a person is on Medicare or Medicaid that coverage stops when they are incarcerated. For example, people with a mental health diagnosis who have been receiving medication, etc. while in the community, their insurance stops when they are incarcerated and medical care is the responsibility of the jail. She noted this may be different than it was before. It was the consensus of the Council to continue discussion regarding this agenda item as part of the next agenda item. 7. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH YAKIMA COUNTY Chief Compaan commented this is a similar contract for jail services with Yakima County; the rates are significantly lower but there are logistics with transporting prisoners to/from the Yakima County Jail. The intent would be to use the Yakima County Jail for more long term commitments such as in excess of 10- 14 days because it logistically is not worth transporting prisoners for commitments shorter than that. The Yakima County rate under the terms of this one-year contract is $54.75/day with no booking fee; Snohomish County’s general housing rate is $84/day and a booking fee of $115 for each prisoner. He summarized the Yakima County contract would provide significant saving and would be utilized for longer term commitments. Councilmember Petso observed the Snohomish County contract represented a 34% increase. She asked whether the contract included an annual increase. Chief Compaan answered the contract with Snohomish County sets out the rates for the 3-year term of the agreement. If the agreement is renewed, there is an escalator of 90% of the CPI for the subsequent renewal terms. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether Yakima County had the capability for video arraignment. Chief Compaan answered no, that should not be necessary because the case will have already been adjudicated. Mayor Earling advised Snohomish County informed the City that there would be substantial increases for all cities that utilize their services due to issues in the jail over the past couple years. Chief Compaan advised the rates at the Snohomish County Jail are still less expensive than King County. Council President Buckshnis recalled this was brought up at the Snohomish County Cities meeting. She relayed the increase was related to providing medical and mental health services. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule Agenda Items 6 and 7 on next week’s Consent Agenda. Packet Page 110 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 9 8. REVIEW & POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY Public Works Director Williams suggested following discussion the Council advise of any requested changes to the policy and staff will provide a clean copy at the Council’s next business meeting for action. Mr. Williams explained there are numerous references to trees in the Code. The definition of a street tree was unclear and the Tree Board recently provided a recommendation. Designated street trees covered by the Street Plan are limited to the downtown bowl. The issue tonight is related to trees located in City’s rights-of-way that not designated street trees, miscellaneous trees located in the rights-of-way that happen to grow there or were planted by property owners. The right-of-way is the area from edge of pavement to where the property owner has taken responsibility with their landscaping. A resolution in place since 1978 established guidelines for the trimming and removal of trees in the right- of-way but only authorize three reasons for trimming or removing a tree located in the right-of-way, all related to impacts the tree has on public infrastructure such as a waterline, road, sidewalk, etc. There is nothing in the policy that authorizes trimming or removing a tree if it is damaging or affecting private property or infrastructure such as sidewalk, driveway, lawn, a foundation, etc. The Tree Board began discussing this over a year ago. The proposed policy is the Tree Board’s recommendation to the Council. Mr. Williams proposed three changes to the Tree Board’s recommendation: 1. The Tree Board identified a tree in the right-of-way that this policy would apply to as a tree 6 inches or more in diameter. The 3rd bullet, of Section 1 Permit Required identifies any trimming of a tree over a height of 8 feet above the ground as measured from the downslope side of the tree. A tree 6 inches in diameter will certainly be over 8 feet tall. He recommended this bullet regarding height be removed as requiring a permit for trees 8 feet in height would result in regulating nearly every tree in the right-of-way. 2. Section 4, Review add “(as appropriate)” following the list of departments. 3. Section 5, Replanting. Revise the title to read, “Trees approved for removal are to be replaced as follows:” Mr. Williams highlighted the second bullet in Section 5, City staff/consulting arborist to review recommended tree replacement ratio and make a final determination on appropriate replacement ratio for the site. He described the process for trimming/removing a tree in the right-of-way: obtain a right-of-way permit, pay a minor or full right-of-way permit depending on the size of the tree and have an arborist write a letter stating one of the necessary criteria have been met. Staff will confirm the necessary criteria have been met and take steps as appropriate. It could be that removal is not necessary; root pruning or other less aggressive approach could address the issue. If a permit is issued, the homeowner hires a qualified tree service to trim/remove the tree. Under this policy a homeowner can obtain a permit do the work themselves if the action is only trimming, the branches will not fall in the improved section of the right- of-way and no power equipment will be used. He emphasize this would be a significant improvement; the code rewrite will pull together all the parts of the Tree Code. Council President Buckshnis viewed the trimming of a tree over 8 feet differently; her neighbors have trimmed very large trees simply to improve their view. She preferred that provision remain in the policy. She agreed those trees were over 6 inches in diameter. Mr. Williams answered if the tree was over 6 inches in diameter, they would be required to obtain a permit to trim or remove the tree. Most of the time a tree 6 inches in diameter would be over 8 feet. Packet Page 111 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 10 Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Buckshnis to retain the bullet regarding the 8-foot tree in the code if it was assumed every 6 inch diameter tree would be over 8 feet in height. Mr. Williams explained if that is retained, a permit, arborist letter, etc. would be required to remove a 1-inch tree that is 8 feet in height, a significant effort by the homeowner. Councilmember Bloom suggested changing the wording to over 8 feet above the ground and 6 inches in diameter. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification regarding replanting. Mr. Williams explained the Tree Board provided a recommended replacement, recognizing replacement would not always be appropriate. This is general guideline for tree replacement but if the arborist and the City agree it would not be appropriate, the property owner would not be obliged to replant. Mr. Williams recognized tension between the title of the table, “Trees approved for removal are to be replaced as follows” and the bullet that follows that states “City staff/consulting arborist to review recommended tree replacement ratio and make a final determination on appropriate replacement ratio for the site.” Councilmember Bloom relayed one of the Tree Board’s goals is to increase the City’s canopy cover due to the many benefits associated with it; Edmonds has a lower canopy cover than even Seattle. The Tree Board wanted a replacement schedule to ensure removal of a large tree removed would require replacement by tree(s) that add to the canopy cover and be a correct tree for that particular area. She noted in many instances the trees are inappropriate for the location and that is the reason they need to be removed. She felt the replanting schedule was appropriate and suggested allowing a tree to be planted elsewhere on the individual’s property. Mr. Williams envisioned the arborist, staff and the homeowner would determine an appropriate location for the replacement tree(s). Councilmember Bloom referred to other options Mr. Williams mentioned such as root trimming, etc., asking whether that would be addressed by the arborist. Mr. Williams agreed it would. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that would be included in the code, recalling the Tree Board’s intent was that trees not be removed if the issue could be addressed in another manner. Mr. Williams assured the intent is to save the tree in its existing location if roots can be trimmed and the tree remain healthy and structurally sound. The City will rely heavily on certified, professional arborists to make that call and he was confident arborists will look for less aggressive solutions first. Councilmember Bloom asked who paid for the certified arborist to do the assessment, observing the City currently does not have an arborist. Mr. Williams advised this policy does not apply to tree trimming/removal done by the City. If staff identifies a tree that is unhealthy, a sight hazard or damaging the infrastructure, staff will initiate its removal. This policy addresses a tree that was damaging private property and the initiator would be the property owner who would pay the permit fee, hire the arborist to write the letter for review by staff before a decision was made. Councilmember Bloom observed the reference to City staff and consulting arborist is the review of the arborist’s report. She hoped the City would eventually have a City arborist. Mr. Williams agreed that would be a future recommendation. The code rewrite that will pull together all the tree regulations will be accompanied by some resource requests from staff. Councilmember Petso asked the cost of a right-of-way permit. Mr. Williams answered a minor right-of- way permit is $115; a full right-of-way permit is $380. Councilmember Petso asked how the right-of-way was defined; observing some trees in the right-of-way may be in an area landscaped by the homeowner. Mr. Williams answered most property owners have a good idea where the property line is; instead of leaving untended real estate between the edge of the pavement and the property line, often property owners will improve that area. To the extent there are trees in that area that interfere with the right-of- way, the City can initiate trimming/removal. A permit would be required if the homeowner wants to have a tree trimmed/removed. There may be occasions when it is unknown whether the tree is in the right-of- way or on private property although typically power lines, etc. will provide an idea whether the tree is in Packet Page 112 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 11 the right-of-way or on private property. Councilmember Petso observed the intent was to apply this policy to trees in the right-of-way regardless of what the homeowners may have done over the years. Councilmember Johnson referred to the asterisked comment at the end of Section 3, “Removal or trimming of trees located in City rights-of-way designed to enhance views from abutting properties will not be approved,” pointing out tree trimming for view enhancement would not be approved. Mr. Williams commented removal of a tree that is damaging infrastructure may also enhance views; that sentence refers to instances where the primary reason for altering the tree would be to supplement views. Councilmember Johnson recalled an example provided to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee, a mature cedar in the public right-of-way that was intruding onto a homeowner’s lawn. Mr. Williams agreed there was not a definitive answer. Enormous trees have roots that affect the homeowner’s yard, drop needles and block sun from the yard and house. He referred to the last bullet under necessary criteria in Section 3, which provides some latitude, “The tree has outgrown its location, is nearing the end of its healthy life, and should be replaced by a smaller, location appropriate tree.” He agreed there were examples of massive Redwood trees that may be affecting the homeowner’s property. It would be incredibly expensive to remove such a tree and if the tree was healthy, there may be tension between the public’s interest and the private interest. Council President Buckshnis suggested revising the 3rd bullet, Section 1 Permit Required to read, “Any trimming of a tree over a height of eight feet (8’) above the ground as measured from the downslope side of the tree and 6 inches in diameter.” It was the consensus of the Council for staff to make the requested modification and schedule review and approval on a future agenda. 9. DEVELOPMENT CODE MAJOR UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained staff has requested the funds previously allocated by the City Council and not spent in 2014 to be carried forward into 2015 to continue the code update. The Council can also consider adding funds in 2015 to complete more of the update. She described what has been accomplished to date: approximately $40,000 of the $150,000 allocated in 2014/2015 has been spent and $110,000 remains. In addition the Council allocated $80,000 over that 2- year period for the critical area regulations and Best Available Science report; that is underway and will continue into 2015. The Council also allocated $25,000 for the Tree Code and a $10,000 grant was obtained; those funds are expected to be expended by the end of 2014 and recommendations forwarded to the Council. Carol Morris, a legal consultant, reviewed the City’s code, wrote memos with suggestions and questions, suggested reorganization for chapters, and pointed out legal processes that needed to be considered. Those ideas can be incorporated into the next phase of the code update. Ms. Hope explained in the seven months she has been with the City she has generally reviewed the Development Code, heard from others about the gaps and perceived problems and reviewed Ms. Morris’ work. Next steps include preparing the code and public process which cannot be completed before the end of 2014. She proposed carrying forward the what remains of the $110,000 into 2015, recognize things that have been done and keep moving forward and for the Council to determine whether they wanted to add funds to the budget. The Planning Board has had several discussions about the code update this year; they suggested developing objectives, principles and high priorities for the code update. The packet includes a memo from the Planning Board regarding the code rewrite with regard to the public process, principles, and key objectives. Principles identified by the Planning Board include: • Consistency with current state law • Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 113 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 12 • Predictability • Some flexibility • Recognition of property rights • Clear, user-friendly language and format • Enforceability Objectives identified by the Planning Board include: • Ensuring reasonable and clear processes for all actions • Providing expanded and up-to-date set of definitions • Encouragement of appropriate development • Protection of critical areas and shorelines • Recognition of diverse neighborhoods and their characteristics • Encouragement of pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly access • Encouragement of low impact stormwater management (consistent with Ecology rules) The Planning Board and the City Council have expressed interest in addressing key code provisions such as subdivisions, Planned Resident Development (PRD), nonconformance, appeals, variances, zoning amendments, criteria for conditional uses, and many other issues that are either not clear or in different areas of code or are confusing such as off street parking, trees, bicycle facilities, street and sidewalk restoration standards, accessory dwelling units, multifamily residential, notice procedures, etc. She recognized all 300 chapters could not be reviewed with what remains of the $150,000 which is the reason for Council discussing whether to allocate additional resources and whether it should be allocated this year or another year. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification of the $110,000; whether it is in included in the draft budget. Ms. Hope answered there is $85,000 carried forward into the 2015 budget; the intent is to spend $25,000 this year. If that is not accomplished, a budget amendment will be proposed in the first quarter. Councilmember Petso observed additional funds would be above and beyond the $85,000. Ms. Hope answered yes, if that was the Council’s desire. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the rewrite would be done in a manner so that the code was logical and created a system so that another rewrite would not be required in the future. Ms. Hope agreed that was the intent, acknowledging codes will need to be revised in the future as changes occur over time. The intent is to have a more integrated code organized in a consistent, thoughtful manner. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out key to that will be ensuring new ordinances are consistent and do not create conflicts with previous decisions. Council President Buckshnis observed it will cost $500,000 to do the entire code rewrite, the Council already allocated $150,000 and the estimate for professional services is another $300,000. Ms. Hope agreed that could be the cost if the Council wanted to do everything at once in 1-2 years. The proposal is to utilize Ms. Morris’ work and issue an RFQ for the remaining $110,000. Any additional funds would be the Council’s choice to allocate. Council President Buckshnis asked what chapters would be addressed. Ms. Hope answered at least the ones she identified such as subdivision, etc. There are portions of items in various chapters. All the chapters cannot be addressed for that amount; however, some chapters do not need to be changed in substance or, like the building code, is updated every three years based on State law. Council President Buckshnis referred to the public comment that nothing had been done, relaying her belief a lot had been done. She asked Ms. Hope what she has done in the past in other jurisdictions. Ms. Hope advised there are some issues that need to be addressed sooner such as the tree policy, consolidating how animals are addressed in the police code and the development code, etc., as well as how to Packet Page 114 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 13 reorganize the code. Some cleanup items have been presented to the Council such as the definition of a legal lot and innocent purchaser. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the City could hire someone full-time to rewrite the code and whether that would be cheaper than a consultant. Ms. Hope answered it could be cheaper but would take longer whereas a consulting firm has numerous people who can work on it at once. Either way could work; the City would probably get more punch with a consultant. Council President Buckshnis asked what was done in Mountlake Terrace. Ms. Hope advised a consultant was hired for certain pieces and other sections were addressed in a logical framework. Councilmember Bloom asked how long it took Mountlake Terrace to complete the entire process. Ms. Hope answered about ten years. Councilmember Bloom relayed her primary concern was a code rewrite has been needed since it was first discussed in 2000. There was an allocation of $300,000 for a code rewrite in 2005 which she was told was put back into the General Fund and only a couple chapters were rewritten. She wholeheartedly supported allocating the full $300,000. She recognized the budget was tight but she was concerned that having code that was difficult for staff to enforce, contradictory and not consistent was actually costing the City more. She did not want to wait ten years for the code rewrite to be completed. She supported allocating the necessary funds to complete the rewrite in 2015, suggesting it funded in the budget, not from the $250,000 allocated to Council projects. Councilmember Johnson observed $40,000 was spent in 2013-2014 for Ms. Morris for some high level review and chapter reorganization. She asked whether Ms. Morris completed any chapter rewrites. Ms. Hope answered she completed a few but they were not written specifically for Edmonds and do not necessarily not work for Edmonds. Some pieces of the chapters she wrote can be used. Councilmember Johnson observed there was $85,000 carryover and $25,000 left this year, observing that would accomplish approximately 1/3 of what Councilmember Bloom recommended. Ms. Hope advised the $300,000 is in addition to the existing allocation. Councilmember Petso recalled when the City first started working with Ms. Morris, the intent was the code rewrite would not include policy changes; it would simply redo existing code. She asked whether that was still the plan. Ms. Hope answered yes, although some things may arise that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or State laws have changed. Councilmember Petso requested as issues are come up, they be identified as either, 1) technical corrections to remove inconsistency, or 2) policy changes. Ms. Hope agreed there would be explanation for any proposed changes. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. He advised Item 13 would be rescheduled to a future meeting. 10. PRESENTATION REGARDING LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED 2015 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty distributed a summary of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s (LTAC) 2015 work program and budget which he explained is different than previous years. The use of lodging tax is prescribed by State law. Cities over 5,000 that impose a lodging tax must appoint a LTAC. All use of lodging tax revenue must reviewed by the LTAC, the LTAC provides a recommendation to the City Council. This will clarify for the auditor that all the steps related to the LTAC review and approval and the Council’s review and approval have been followed. He explained 25% of the lodging tax revenue is allocated towards arts and cultural events that promote tourism. He referred to a list of those programs in the summary. The application for each event is included Packet Page 115 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 14 in the Council packet. The remaining 75% of lodging tax revenue is available for general tourism promotion activities, programs and services. He identified the uses of those funds: • Snohomish County Tourism Bureau • Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center • Edmonds Center for the Arts Season Brochure Arts/Culture/Tourism Ad • Puget Sound Bird Fest • Advertising/marketing for tourism • Professional services for tourism and arts/culture/events marketing and website implementation o $1,000/month contract with consultant Ellen Hyatt • Edmonds hosting the “RevitalizeWA 2015” Conference in May, organized by Washington State Trust for Historic Preservation and the Main Street Program (funded from the fund balance) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the $1,000/month budget for Ellen Hyatt. Mr. Doherty advised it would be to maintain the new tourism website, the Facebook page and other social media, updating copy and imagery for the art advertising program, creating a strategic plan for getting the best bang for the buck for advertising, and pitching stories related to Edmonds. Council President Buckshnis recalled $2,500/quarter budgeted in the social medial policy. Mr. Doherty explained the City’s social media presence is different than the tourism related social media. The City’s social media presence and outreach is related to art, City functions, etc. This is specific to Visit Edmonds. The $1,000/month will cover 20 hours/month. Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Doherty for presenting this so clearly. She relayed the LTAC unanimously supported this recommendation. She supported having Ellen Hyatt’s efforts funded by lodging tax revenue. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many hotel properties there are in Edmonds and the number of hotel rooms. Mr. Doherty answered there are 6-7 hotels; he did not know the number of rooms but the annual projected revenue $90,000. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on a future Consent Agenda. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Finance Director Scott James reviewed changes made to the budget since it was presented: Budget Book Page # Description Cash Increase (Decrease) General Fund 39 Executive Assistant Schedule Salary Step Increase ($4,314) 43 Advertising Expense ($4,200) 86 Small Equipment (Reduce DP #13) $2,200 26 Business Licenses & Fees (Increase Animal License Fee Revenue $27,770 26 Public Safety (Increase Grant Revenue from Dept. of Justice) $3,970 36 Public Safety (Increase Woodway Law Protection Revenue) $7,500 45 City Attorney ($87,440) Medical Plan Savings $295,393 Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $ 32,926 Fund 111 Street Medical Savings $10,896 Packet Page 116 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 15 Impacts to Fund 111 Ending Cash $10,896 Fund 112 Street Construction 163 Construction (DP #36) ($100,000) 163 Interfund Services (DP #36) ($6,000) Impacts to Fund 112 Ending Cash ($106,000) Fund 120 Hotel/Motel Tax 94 Professional Services (increase budget per LTAC recommendation) $15,000 Impacts to Fund 120 Ending Balance $15,000 Fund 126 REET 1 166 Construction $200,000 166 Land ($200,000) Impacts to Fund 126 Ending Cash $0 Fund 130 Cemetery Fund Medical Savings Impacts to Fund 130 Ending Cash $1,727 Fund 132 Parks Construction 168 Land $1,300,000 168 Construction ($1,300,000) 168 Construction $200,000 Impacts to Fund 132 Ending Cash ($200,000) Fund 421 Water Utility Fund Medical Savings $19,871 Impacts to Fund 421 Ending Balance $19,871 Fund 422 Storm Utility Fund Medical Savings $11,151 Impacts to Fund 422 Ending Balance $11,151 Fund 423 Sewer Fund Medical Savings $31,870 Impacts to Fund 423 Ending Balance $31,870 Fund 511 Equipment Rental Fund Medical Savings $4,660 Impacts to Fund 511 Ending Balance $4,660 Mr. James reviewed challenges: Budget Book Page # Department Description Amount New Ongoing Public Safety Costs for the General Fund 59 Non-Dept’l Fire District 1 Services Contract $978,000 59 Non-Dept’l Prisoner Care $163,950 59 Non-Dept’l ESCA/SERS $9,300 59 Non-Dept’l SNOCOM $45,332 Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $1,196,582 Mr. James advised the City continues to meet with Fire District 1 (FD1) regarding the service contract. Mayor Earling advised the Council will have an executive session regarding the FD1 issue next Tuesday. Council President Buckshnis asked what percentage the $978,000 represents and what it was based on. Mr. James responded it was 13%. The $978,000 is an accumulation of costs. When FD1 present their bill, they started with the base in 2009; FD1 negotiated a contract in 2010 in which they incurred higher cost Packet Page 117 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 16 but those increases were not passed on to the City. FD1 subsequently ratified their 2013-2014 contract which raised the base to at least $970,000 more, beginning in 2015. FD1 is still negotiating their 2015 contract. Council President Buckshnis observed this represents what is believed to be the settlement amount for retroactive pay as well as 2015. Mr. James answered those are separate issues. The retroactivity was slight more than 26% for the 2013-2014 union contract. Council President Buckshnis referred to the bill for $1.6 million and asked if the City would pay an additional 13%. Mr. James answered yes. When FD1 settled its contract, it raised the base which is $978,000 higher. FD1 also expects the City to assist with the retroactive pay. Councilmember Mesaros observed the City will be paying $1.6 million plus $978,000, actually $2.5 million. Mayor Earling clarified the $1.67 million is the amount FD1 has billed the City for retroactive pay; the $978,000 is a guestimate of the increase in next year’s budget. Mr. James relayed FD1 has acknowledged the retroactivity bill is very large and have offered to accept quarterly installments over two years. He advised there may be room for negotiation on the retroactivity amount; the City has presented its case. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled former Finance Director Neumaier set aside funds for the increase. Mayor Earling responded the amount set aside was not enough. Mr. James advised the total cost for FD1 in the 2014 budget was $6.5 million; the City currently pays $6,220,000. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas whether there was a set aside in 2014 budget for the FD1 contract. Mr. James advised the budget included $6.5 million for FD1; he was not aware of any other set aside other than the contingency reserve. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the $45,000 for SNOCOM. Mr. James advised that is their increased cost. New World may be operational next year which will include extra costs. In SNOCOM’s approved 2015 budget, Edmonds’ allocation increased by $45,000 from $888,000 to $934,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed frustration that she has heard New World will be coming every year for the past five years. Mr. James agreed it was frustrating for all sides. Councilmember Petso relayed some of the changes have ongoing impacts, others are one year adjustments. She requested the Strategic Outlook be updated to reflect the changes. Mr. James continued his review of challenges: Budget Book Page # Department Description Amount General Fund 59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 Transfer to 617 Firemen’s Pension Fund S/B increased by: $10,000 59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 transfer to 009 LEOFF Fund S/B increased by: $100,000 59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 Transfer to 012 Contingency Fund S/B increased by: $442,800 Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $552,800 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Bloom and she have served on this board for the past few years and have advocated not to take money away from these programs. The biggest issue is as LEOFF members age, their needs increase to include in home care which is very expensive, as much as $70,000/person/year. There are 27 LEOFF members. Mr. James advised Finance is aware and concerned about it. This proposal is to begin the discussion regarding a fund balance policy. Council President Buckshnis relayed only $300,000 was spent last year and the estimated increase was $70,000. She did not object to the proposal or considering a policy. Mr. James advised the $533,000 was carried forward to bring the balance to over $700,000. Packet Page 118 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 17 Councilmember Petso observed there were 27 people in the LEOFF 009 and asked how many are in the 617 Firemen’s Pension Fund. Mr. James answered 4. Mr. James reviewed proposed Council allocations from the $250,000: Proposal # Description Cash Increase (Decrease) 1 Veterans Park Design ($10,000) 2 Train Trench Study ($90,000) & Peer Review ($10,000) ($100,000) 3 Highway 99 Study and Planning ($100,000) 4 Planned Action EIS (2015 Phase 1 $75,000, 2016 Phase 2 $75,000) ($75,000) 5 Council Meeting Video Taping ($6,500) 6 Building & Facility Maintenance Needs Study ($20,000) Subtotal of Allocations ($311,500) Amount Requests Exceed Balance to Allocate ($61,500) Councilmember Petso asked the target geographic location for the planned action EIS. Councilmember Johnson answered Highway 99. Councilmember Petso suggested she, Councilmember Johnson and Ms. Hope discuss this, relaying that a study area of that size was inconsistent with what she thought a planned action EIS was. Ms. Hope relayed it was her understanding $100,000 was proposed to be allocated for planning and standards for the Highway 99 corridor. Up to an additional $75,000 would be allocated for an EIS particularly related to traffic, environment, and aesthesis for a total of $175,000. A planned action EIS is a subarea plan and the size can vary. A special study is done for that area in which standards are analyzed and identified, etc. and an EIS is crafted for that option and 1-2 other options. The SEPA work will also be done. It is advantageous for development to have the EIS and SEPA done up front. For Council President Buckshnis, Ms. Hope advised both a subarea plan and a planned action become part of the Comprehensive Plan, eliminating the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Council President Buckshnis asked what area of Highway 99 would be analyzed. Ms. Hope advised that would be worked out in the next stage. Council President Buckshnis asked how the amount was determined. Ms. Hope answered $150,000 is a typical amount for a planned action. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the amount could be reduced to $50,000. Ms. Hope advised that could be done but $175,000 would provide a cushion. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding a planned action was not done for a large area that has such different environmental conditions such as exist on Highway 99. For example, some intersections flow better than others, other areas, such as at the county line, are at a complete fail. The idea of doing one SEPA covering the entire length of Highway 99 seemed odd. She relayed information she found via a link on MSRC that states, as a result the city pays for studies and process that would normally be paid for by private applicants. Although there is no formal method under state law to recover the costs of upfront analysis, some jurisdictions have developed cost-sharing agreements with local property owners and associations interested in utilizing the planned action process. Councilmember Petso relayed her concerns, 1) the Council is being asked to subsidize private development, and 2) a planned action for a very large area, such as the entire length of Highway 99, leaves little opportunity for a cost-sharing agreement with a group of property owners versus the possibility for recouping costs if done in a targeted area. Ms. Hope responded this has been available via GMA for approximately 15 years. Initially the state wanted a way to fund these in perpetuity and gave grants to jurisdictions as pilot projects while they researched cost-sharing methods. There never have been any good cost-sharing methods for planned actions. Developers/property owners fund environmental work on a project-by-project, piecemeal basis, not for an entire area. Some local governments have done a planned action EIS to consider an entire area versus property-by-property as development occurs. Packet Page 119 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 18 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the initial thought was $150,000 would be needed to do the entire 2-mile stretch of Highway 99. Ms. Hope advised $100,000 plus $50,000 would cover the full planned action, codes and environmental analysis. She would work with the Council on determining the exact area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in participating in that. Council President Buckshnis referred to the $6500 for Council meeting videotaping, advising it is a necessity and in the future would be included in the budget. The intent is to utilize Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman as a legislative assistant for 4 hours/month and the proposed $6,500 would fund videotaping by Ms. Bevington. Councilmember Petso relayed the $250,000 is intended for onetime expenditures. She suggested building the cost for a legislative assistant and/or videotaping into the Council budget rather than from the Council allocations. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council discuss using the existing council assistant as a legislative aid. An option would be to reduce Ms. Spellman’s hours to 16/week. Council President Buckshnis supported having Ms. Spellman provide 4 hours/week as a legislative aid because she is already in the office, has history, is able to find things quickly, etc. Councilmember Bloom observed it appeared the council assistant’s hours would be increased and the additional 4 hours would be as a legislative assistant. Council President Buckshnis explained the council assistant previously worked 20 hours which included 4 hours videotaping Council meetings. She is unable to videotape evening meetings; therefore, her hours have been reduced to 16/week. She would like to have a 20/hour work week, an additional 4 hours/week. Council President Buckshnis proposed rather than an additional 4 hours as the executive assistant, she would act as a legislative aid for all Councilmembers 4 hours/week. Councilmember Bloom preferred to discuss what Councilmembers wanted in a legislative aid, identify a job description and the hours it would entail and include that in the Council budget. Council President Buckshnis advised Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie, City Attorney Cates and Ms. Spellman have drafted a job description for the legislative aid; she will have it sent to the Council. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Building and Facility Maintenance Needs Study. Councilmember Johnson advised it was not her idea but she wanted to champion it. This study was discussed at the Finance Committee and would provide an inventory of needs rather than operating in a break/fix mode. Mr. James explained this was done in Mukilteo; an inventory was done of all the buildings, parks, facilities that included the estimated life of all the components. Mukilteo’s study cost approximately $9,800; he added $10,000 due to Edmonds’ size. Councilmember Mesaros agreed the legislative assistant position description and an estimate of the hours needed to be done first. He was uncertain 4 hours/week would be sufficient to answer questions posed to staff and to provide data and information independent of what is provided by staff. Council President Buckshnis advised the proposal is 4 hours/week or 20 hours/month. She queried several Councilmembers regarding their needs for legislative assistant and it was not a full-time person. Her proposal was to utilize the existing person in that capacity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she spends a lot of time doing what a legislative aid could do. The current job specification for the council assistant is 4 hours/week videotaping and 16 hours in the Council office. She asked if the proposal was for the current council assistant to work in the office 20 hours/week and the $6500 would fund a person to videotape Council meetings. Council President Buckshnis relayed Ms. Spellman’s job duties have been reduced to 16 hours/week because she is unable to video evening meetings. Ms. Bevington has been videotaping 4 hours/week. Her suggestion to get Ms. Spellman back to 20 hours/week would be 4 hours/week as a legislative aid. Packet Page 120 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 19 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Spellman will no longer videotape Council meetings. Council President Buckshnis advised that was correct at this time. Her contract will be adjusted to reflect she will no longer videotape Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some Councilmembers are interested in determining how many hours would be needed for legislative aid type work. Councilmember Petso commented she had not heard of people sharing a legislative assistant and the concept seems very odd. For example, one Councilmember may ask the aid to research what cities have done to help acquire parks; and another Councilmember may ask him/her to research what cities are doing to sell off surplus parks. She was hesitant to have a single, shared legislative assistant among seven people. 12. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling advised this would be delayed to a future meeting. 13. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS This item was rescheduled to a future meeting via action taken at the conclusion of Agenda Item 9. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling advised Rick Schaefer, the Principle at Tetra Tech, was scheduled to make a presentation at the November 28 meeting. His father passed away so his presentation has been rescheduled to November 25. Mayor Earling thanked Council and staff who attended the Five Corners ribbon cutting last week. Staff and elected officials have endured a lot of bullets as that project moved along. Early reports, including some from people who were opposed to the roundabout, have been positive. Mayor Earling invited the public to the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza at 11 a.m. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis advised she is working on the extended agenda. The Council will not be meeting on December 23 or 30. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Packet Page 121 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 18, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember (arrived 7:25 p.m.) Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Deb Sharp, Accountant Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:02 p.m. Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:15 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:18 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REORDER THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: CHANGE ITEM 8 TO ITEM 11, ITEM 9 TO Packet Page 122 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 2 ITEM 10, ITEM 10 TO ITEM 8 AND ITEM 11 TO ITEM 9. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.) COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 6 AND 7 AND MOVE THE DECISIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS TO FOLLOW ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.) 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Items C, D and E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211469 THROUGH #211552 DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 FOR $1,797,077.68 (REISSUED CHECK #211496 $32.76). APPROVAL OF REISSUED PAYROLL CHECKS #61281 $33.11 AND #61282 $708.90 F. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY G. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH YAKIMA COUNTY Item A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2014 Councilmember Bloom requested the following corrections: • Page 6, 2nd full paragraph, 4th sentence, add “not” following “that it would.” • Page 6, 2nd full paragraph, 5th sentence, change “$86,00” to $86,000.” COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.) Item C: PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT Councilmember Petso suggested the Public Works Quarterly Report should have been reviewed in a study session prior to scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. She relayed a question that she had emailed to Public Works Director Phil Williams: the quarterly report shows the City will be receiving a grant in December for a project on 76th Avenue. When Council last discussed that project, concerns were raised regarding access and the backup that occurs at Edmonds-Woodway High School and College Place Elementary. She questioned why the City would accept a construction grant prior to resolving the access issues. Mr. Williams responded this project provides an opportunity to address backups onto 76th that occur with student drop-off at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Staff has met with representatives from Edmonds-Woodway High School and the Edmonds School District; the conceptual solution is to turn the high school driveway into an exit only and move access to the drop-off area to 216th. Staff will work with Edmonds-Woodway High School to design improvements and striping on their property to allow drop-off to occur in an efficient and safe manner. That design has not yet been done; staff plans to present an amendment to the David Evans & Associates design contract at next week’s study session to add that issue and others. Once resources are available, a detailed design will begin. Packet Page 123 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 3 Councilmember Petso asked about a similar problem that occurs at College Place Elementary. Mr. Williams advised the design phase of the restriping project on the north end has not yet begun. Staff will work with Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to accommodate the needs of College Place. He summarized staff is aware of the issue and it will be resolved during design. Councilmember Petso asked whether the grant was for the intersection improvements only. Mr. Williams answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS TO APPROVE ITEM C. Councilmember Bloom commented the quarterly report indicates the 2014 funds for Neighborhood Traffic Calming have been carried forward into 2015. She recalled those funds had been allocated to the SR 104 crosswalk. Mr. Williams relayed his understanding that a budget adjustment could be made to move those funds into the 2015 budget to supplement the $10,000 budgeted in 2015. The funds for the crosswalk were paid out of ending fund balance. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINED. Item D: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3982 PROVIDING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" (ECDC 21.55.010), DEFINING "LOT OF RECORD" (ECDC 21.55.015) AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING "INNOCENT PURCHASER" (ECDC 20.75.180). (AMD20140001) Councilmember Petso explained she previously voted against this and will vote against it again. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Item E: REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD WATER QUALITY UPDATES -DECANT FACILITY RETROFIT PROJECT AND PROJECT ACCEPTANCE Councilmember Petso inquired about the applicability of the City’s purchasing policy to the project; the agenda memo states in accordance with purchasing policies, the Public Works Director can authorize the bid as construction costs for the project were less than $50,000. As this project has an engineer’s estimate of $69,000 and total construction costs of $51,000, she would expect it to be classified as a project in excess of $50,000 and to follow that procedure in the purchasing policy. Mr. Williams answered staff tries to provide all the information about an entire project which is the intent of the purchasing policy. He agreed if the bids had been over $50,000, Mayor Earling’s signature would have been required. Councilmember Petso explained the reason for her questioning was recalling the experience with Haines Wharf. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Farrell Fleming, Executive Director Edmonds Senior Center, referred to the proposed update to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), specifically the restoration opportunity identified in the SMP that would pull back the parking bump-out at the senior center and align it with the bulkhead along the waterfront to restore beach habitat. If this restoration opportunity is pursued, he pointed out the Packet Page 124 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 4 importance of reducing the parking setback to 40 feet as allowed by the SMP. The senior center currently has 79 parking spaces; if the existing bump-out is retained and used for parking, initial studies show up to 109 parking spaces could be provided, a most desirable increase. If the bump-out is pulled back and there is a 40-foot setback, parking spaces will be reduced to 86. A 60-foot foot setback reduces parking below the existing amount. He envisioned the new building would be very popular and the more parking the better. Parking on the waterfront should not be the only consideration; restoring beach habitat and beautifying the area should weigh more heavily in the long run. These two needs, parking versus restoration need to be balanced in light of the public programming nature of the new community/senior center. To achieve that balance, a 40-foot setback is appropriate. At the point construction is ready to begin, the restoration project may be able to attract significant state and federal funds. Brent Malgarin, recalled at the last meeting when Pam Stuller advised there were approximately 350 members of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID), Councilmember Mesaros comment he found it surprising that all 350 supported the EDBID. He has been collecting signatures to shut down the EDBID because he is opposed to it on numerous levels. He has contacted 58 members, 48 have signed on to close it, 10 chose not to for various reasons. He summarized not all the members are in favor of the EDBID. Val Stewart, Edmonds, speaking as a resident and not a Planning Board Member, thanked the Council for their unanimous vote on October 21, 2014 to approve a 100-foot setback and 50-foot buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment in the SMP which shows a commitment to preserving and enhancing the nearshore environment. With regard to Item 8, SMP adoption, she explained the senior center is in the Urban Mixed Use I environment; the Council will need to consider how parking setbacks fit into the overall scheme of beach restoration and public access. She requested the Council consider the following in their decision-making: hard shoreline armoring such as concrete bulkheads, seawalls and riprap is no longer allowed unless there are extreme circumstances. In the past these techniques were utilized to combat shoreline erosion threatening properties along the shoreline. It is now known that hardening a shoreline can endanger neighboring properties and threaten salmon and is best used as a last resort. She described soft shore stabilization which focuses on enhancing ecological functions. Hard armoring techniques use manmade materials not found on the site; soft shore stabilization utilizes natural materials found locally such as sand, gravel, large wood and native plants. A recent UW study showed more shorebirds inhabit unarmored beaches. The connectivity between adjacent beaches is also an important feature of natural shorelines. She suggested two goals for Urban Mixed Use I, to restore natural beach habitat and to preserve and enhance public access. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the request by one Councilmember to allocate $100,000 from Council funds in the budget for a train trench study and Mayor Earling’s plans to request $1.25 million from the legislature for an alternatives study. He has also heard the Council plans to only spend $10,000 on a peer review of the study done by the consultant. He did not support spending any money on a specific remedy until a complete study of the alternatives has been conducted. He referred to incorrect information in My Edmonds News about the alternatives. He preferred to find out from experts what the right solution was before spending any money on a specific remedy. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2015 PROPERTY TAXES Mayor Earling recalled the Council voted under Agenda Item 3 to move the decisions on Items 6 and 7 until later on agenda due to Councilmember Peterson’s request to be present for the decision. As Councilmember Peterson has arrived, he suggested moving the decisions back to those items. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO MOVE DECISIONS REGARDING ITEMS 6 AND 7 BACK TO THOSE ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 125 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 5 Finance Director Scott James described the 2015 Regular Property Tax Levy: • 2015 Budget Includes 1% Property Tax Increase • Assessor Shows City of Edmonds Assessed Values Increasing 10.8% (Increase in AV before adding in new construction) • New Construction adds $26.57 million Assessed Value He described the 2015 Regular Property Tax calculation for the City: Description Amount 2014 Levy Amount $9,819,161 Add New Construction $42,748 Add Allowance for Adjustments $32,985 Add Refunds $6,764 2015 Starting Point $9,901,658 Add 1% of 2014 Levy $98,192 Total 2015 Levy $9,999,850 Mr. James reviewed a graph of the ten year assessed property values history for the City, highlighting assessed values of $4.8 billion in 2005, peaking at $7.7 billion in 2009, and estimated at $6.7 billion in 2015. He provided a graph of the rate per $1,000 of assessed value history, highlighting a rate of $1.69 in 2005, $1.19 in 2008, $1.76 in 2013 and projected to be $1.47 in 2015. He provided an overview of the 2008 – 2015 EMS Tax Levy: • In 2008 citizens voted to make the EMS Levy a permanent $0.50 levy • During 2010 – 2013 assessed property values declined • During this span of time Edmonds assessed value dropped just over 31% • EMS levy cannot exceed $0.50 • In a declining assessed value environment the City’s EMS levy also declines Mr. James provided a comparison of EMS Tax Levy 2009-2015 Year Action EMS Levy Levy Savings 2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective $3,854,605 $0 2010 Assessed Values Decline 9.8% $3,477,741 $376,864 2011 Assessed Values Decline 7.5% $3,216,629 $637,976 2012 Assessed Values Decline 9.9% $2,897,322 $957,283 2013 Assessed Values Decline 4.3% $2,772,620 $1,081,985 2014 Assessed Values Increase 10% $3,051,206 $803,399 2015 Assessed Values Increase 11.3% $3,395,376 $459,229 $4,316,736 He reviewed a graph of EMS Property Tax Rate per $1,000 of assessed value history, highlighting $0.47 in 2005, $0.32 in 2008, and permanent levy effective in 2009. He described the 2015 EMS Property Tax calculation for the City: Description Amount 2014 Levy Amount $3,051,206 Add New Construction $13,283 2015 Levy 3,064,489 Add ”Banked Capacity” $330,887 Total 2015 Levy $3,395,376 Packet Page 126 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 6 Mr. James explained why City administration is recommending these tax increases: 2015 New Ongoing Costs: Fire District 1 Services Contract $978,000 Prisoner Care $163,950 ESCA/SERS $9,300 SNOCOM $45,332 Impacts to the General Fund $1,196,582 Future Financial Challenges In 2016 Transfer to 617 Firemen’s Pension Fund S/B increased by: $10,000 In 2016 transfer to 009 LEOFF Fund S/B increased by: $100,000 In 2016 Transfer to 012 Contingency Fund S/B increased by: $442,800 Impacts to General Fund $552,800 Total Impact to General Fund $1,749,382 Mr. James summarized the above financial challenges have no new ongoing source of revenue. He described the impact of the tax increases: • 2014 Average Residence Value: $351,100 • 1% Regular Tax Levy Increase: $5.65 • Keeping EMS Levy at $0.50: $18.96 • Average Residence would pay $24.61 in 2015 • Or about $2.05 per month extra Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3983, LEVYING 1% REGULAR PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR 2015, LEVYING 11% EMS TAX INCRASE AND LEVYING $925,309 FOR PUBLIC SAFETY VOTED DEBT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the 11% increase in the EMS tax increase was equal to the $0.50 EMS levy. Mr. James answered yes, it would bring the levy up to $0.50. Councilmember Bloom observed the voters already approved a $0.50 EMS tax levy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON 2014 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council previously discussed these amendments, they were reviewed by the Planning Board and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council and the Council had further discussion in August. She identified the proposed amendments: • Replace the existing Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan with the plan approved by Council in February 2014 • Replace the existing Community Cultural Plan with the plan approved by Council in February 2014 • Text amendment regarding Westgate o Does not change the code Packet Page 127 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 7 o Work with the existing code or the proposed code for Westgate. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained there was a robust public process to develop the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan. The Planning Board vetted the plans in December 2013 and held a public hearing on January 8, 2014. The Council reviewed the plans and held two public hearings on February 4 and 25 and unanimously approved the plans on February 25, 2014. The plans have been submitted to the State to be eligible for the grant process; grants were due May 1, 2014. This is basically a housekeeping amendment; the City has traditionally included the PROS and Community Cultural Plans in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope advised the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is not part of this proposed amendment. That will be considered as part of the budget process and a future amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Westgate text language and asked the difference between mixed use and a mix of uses and why mixed use was selected rather than mix of uses. Ms. Hope responded they can mean the same thing; mixed use refers to a mix of different types of uses. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope’s explanation that using one or the other would not limit where uses could be placed on a site and would allow room for whatever final decisions is made regarding Westgate. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to discussions regarding flexible mixed use on Highway 99 such as commercial development at the front of a site and residential toward the back instead of the standard mixed use with residential over commercial. She asked whether the term mixed use would include both types of development. Ms. Hope answered it would allow full flexibility. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3984, AMENDING THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE 2014 PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN AND THE 2014 COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN AS ELEMENT S OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REPLACE THE EARLIER VERSIONS OF THOSE ELEMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTION C OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCORPORATE NEW LANGUAGE FOR T HE WESTGATE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. INTENT TO APPROVE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the City approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He explained Ecology’s approval process generally takes six months to complete. The process for a “minor” amendment is the same as a full blown SMP update. He reviewed the ecology approval process: • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment Packet Page 128 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 8 o Minimum 30 day comment period o Send comments to local government within 15 days o Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments • Prepare decision packet o 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet o Ecology may: Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes Delay the SMP Amendment • Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval He explained with the proposal to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center building, questions arose regarding how the SMP applies to the site. The SMP Restoration Plan includes a restoration opportunity: relocation of parking lot (bump-out) to restore beach habitat. In the proposed SMP relocation has been changed to reconfiguration to address the bump-out, not relocation of the entire senior center parking lot. He identified the bump-out on an aerial photograph, explaining the bump-out was constructed in the early 1960s for the geodesic dome that was brought up from the Seattle’s World Fair. He provided a photograph of the bump-out from the beach level and the seawall project completed in 2003. The restoration project would be to remove the bump-out and line up the beachfront. Mr. Lien identified SMP regulations that apply to the Senior Center development: • Urban Mixed Use I Environment • Senior Center structure o 15-foot setback o 30 feet in height • View corridor o 30% of parcel width o Adjacent to north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties • Parking o 60-foot setback He described parking setback reductions allowed in the Urban Mixed Use II: • 1 square foot for every foot of walkway or publically accessible open space • Minimum 40-foot setback He displayed a potential site plan for the senior center, identifying the 60-foot parking setback. The parking in the site plan is similar to the existing parking; he identified the area of parking that would be considered a nonconforming use and could continue as a nonconforming use. An option would be to apply the parking setback flexibility allowed in Urban Mixed Use II to the Urban Mixed Use I. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained within the Urban Mixed Use I environment where the senior center is located, the parking setback is 60 feet and there is no option to reduce it to 40 feet. In Urban Mixed Use II, the setback can be reduced 1 foot for every lineal foot of walkway or square foot of open space provided to a minimum of 40 feet. He displayed a potential site plan if the bump-out was removed and the parking setback reduced. Councilmember Petso asked what other properties would be affected by a change to allow the parking flexibility in Urban Mixed Use I. Mr. Lien identified the properties in the Urban Mixed Use I environment, advising all properties in that area could benefit from the setback reduction. Packet Page 129 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 9 Mr. Lien identified the provision for parking setback reduction flexibility in 24.60.080.D.3.c; the Council could approve a change to allow the parking setback reduction flexibility that applies to Mixed Use II to apply to Urban Mixed Use I. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE PARKING SETBACK FLEXIBILITY IN URBAN MIXED USE II APPLY TO URBAN MIXED USE I. Councilmember Johnson asked how long the 60-foot setback had been in effect in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered at least since the SMP was last updated in 2000. Setbacks differ for parking and structures, largely because parking is not considered a priority use within the shoreline area. The parking setback flexibility may have been allowed for the Urban Mixed Use II zone because that zone largely applies to the marina where parking is important and where there is a water dependent use versus the Urban Mixed Use I zone where uses are office space and some residential. Councilmember Johnson asked if a 60-foot setback was consistent with any grant or State regulation. Mr. Lien answered not that he aware of. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1326, EXPRESSING INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English recalled a presentation was made to Council in October; this discussion has been carried forward for several Council meetings. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) with the budget. Councilmember Johnson commented there is one new project description related to the senior center. Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite highlighted two changes, the first in the CFP related to the senior center. A rebuild of the senior center has been in the CFP for quite some time. That has been revised to reflect that the non-profit will rebuild the senior center and the City’s responsibility will be to rehabilitate the grounds and beach access surrounding the senior center when construction begins. The second change is the addition of the Veterans Plaza in the CIP which includes a project description, project benefit rational and a $10,000 initial budget based on Councilmember Peterson’s recommendation. Council President Buckshnis relayed she has provided input to staff regarding funding for the Sunset Avenue project. She agrees with keeping that project on the list but preferred to see how the design goes before estimating the cost. She felt including $2 million in 2018 was premature. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the funding was included as a placeholder. Mr. English responded if the City applied for a construction grant in the future to build something more permanent such as sidewalks and facilities on the south and north end, it would be appropriate to have the $2 million in the plan. If the Council chose to construct something less, it was better to have the funds in the plan than to have no funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported retaining the full $2 million. Councilmember Petso suggested restoring the project description back to a walkway versus a multiuse pathway. She asked why that was not recommended by staff. Mr. English answered that could be done, it was up to the Council. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed that could be done, pointing out a Packet Page 130 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 10 multiuse path was the intent when staff applied for the design grant. The trial project in place on Sunset Avenue, recommended to be in place for one year, will allow the public to experience the geometry and for the Council and public to evaluate the results. He explained the important of gaining some experience with the multiuse pathway. If it is discovered via that experience that it does not work, the City would have the justification to return to the granting agencies and request a change. If the Council decides to change it to a walkway that does not allow wheeled vehicles like bicycles, etc., that experience cannot be gained and it will look like the City changed its mind rather than having any documented reasons. Council President Buckshnis explained the reason she wanted to remove/lower the dollar amount was to provide the Council more control over determining whether or not to continue with a multiuse path. Mr. Williams assured the Council has total control over the project. The project has not yet been designed; there have been concepts proposed and there is the current trial. At the end of the trial there will be many opportunities for the Council and public to comment on the final geometry. The $2.099 million in funding is in 2018 because the funds are not available and the project has not yet been designed. It is important to have a project and funding in the out years to show the City is thinking about a project that will cost more than a trivial amount of money. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to retain multiuse in the description at least until the trial period is concluded. Council can change how much is spent on the project, however, changing the project to a walkway at this time defeats the purpose of the trial multiuse pathway. For the granting agency and the public, Councilmember Petso stated her opinion that the concept has been tested and it does not work. The two things that do not work are, 1) the angle parking, and 2) the multiuse pathway. The angle parking is unsafe for drivers backing out and she has witnessed people using the pathway crossing the street to the sidewalk when they see a bicycle approaching. She was hopeful that would be sufficient to persuade the granting agencies should that issue arise. The project was originally on the CIP as a walkway project, people enjoy it as a walkway and she preferred to return to a walkway. Councilmember Johnson asked what the project description was in last year’s CIP. Mr. Williams answered it has been called the Sunset Avenue Walkway. There was an expectation when staff interacted with the granting agencies that a multiuse pathway would be built. His intent is to protect the funds spent to date to bring the project to this point to avoid the granting agencies requesting the money back because the City did not build what they said they were going to build. The project description in the 2012 CIP is to develop a 200-foot trail with the expansive views of Puget Sound, Olympic Mountains and train to connect downtown businesses to surrounding neighborhoods, water access points and the existing parks. The details state the walkway will be ADA accessible and will accommodate walkers, joggers, bicycles, picnickers and those who would enjoy the view. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Buckshnis about removing the amount, explaining the project is very controversial and there are a lot of strong feelings on either side. She will find it difficult to approve the CFP/CIP until the issues related to the Sunset Avenue Walkway have been resolved. She commented this discussion has been scheduled on the agenda on two prior occasions but as removed due to lengthy agendas. There were a number of items on the CFP/CIP that she wanted to discuss further and she felt the Council could not vote on the CFP/CIP tonight without an opportunity for a thorough discussion. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS TO APPROVE THE DRAFT 2015-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND DIRECT AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED TO ADOPT THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP). Packet Page 131 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 11 Councilmember Bloom reiterated the Council has not had enough opportunity to discuss the individual projects on the CFP/CIP. For example the alternatives study is still a large issue; it has been discussed for two years and each time it becomes increasingly confusing as to what the study will consider. Councilmember Mesaros spoke in favor of the motion as well as including $2 million for the Sunset Avenue Walkway project. He emphasized these are not final project plans; it is declaring the City’s intent. The projects will still return to the Council for approval and there will be tremendous opportunities to discuss projects and even discard them. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK’S WORK SESSION. Council President Buckshnis anticipated the CFP/CIP would have been discussed at a study session as there are some contentious items. With regard to whether to include the $2 million for the Sunset Avenue Walkway, she commented there are two sides to every story. The CIP is a wish list; in a perfect world the CIP could match the budget. She supported moving the discussion to a study session. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmembers’ minds are already made up with regard to the walkway, it was no secret and it had been going for months. She asked, 1) what would be gained by postponing the discussion to another study session where Councilmembers could just agree to disagree again, and 2) when does the CFP/CIP need to be completed and adopted. Mr. English answered the CFP can be adopted with the Comprehensive Plan amendment which was done earlier tonight or when the budget is approved. The CIP is a guidance tool for the budget; it should be adopted ahead of or with the budget. If the Council approved the CFP/CIP tonight, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether individual projects could come back to Council such as the at-grade separation or the walkway. Mr. English responded the Council could bring specific projects back for discussion. If any project moves forward, there are milestones for City Council approval such as the design consultant, etc. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed approving the CFP/CIP with the Sunset Avenue Walkway did not give staff authorization to build it. Mr. English assured pros/cons will be discussed with the Council and public at the end of the trial. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Alternatives Analysis was in last year’s CFP/CIP. Mr. English recalled a lengthy discussion last year regarding the title of that project. Councilmember Peterson understood there is a lot of controversy regarding the Sunset project but the Council has discussed that project a great deal. There have been fairly extensive discussions regarding most of the other projects as well. The reason he made the motion to approve the CFP/CIP is to take some action and he was unsure what the purpose of postponing would be. He did not support the motion to postpone to next week’s study session, finding the CFP/CIP has been discussed enough. Councilmember Petso referred to inconsistencies between the budget and CIP for 2015 and asked what happened if the budget and CIP did not match. She has discovered at least four instances where they do not match. Mr. English responded there is no specific requirement that the CIP mirror the budget but they should as the CIP is a planning level document. Councilmember Petso recalled in in prior years if the budget included funds in 2015 for a project, the CIP showed the same amount and the CIP description was added to the budget book. It does not appear that was done this year; there are different amounts and different projects. Mr. English expressed interest in the differences she had discovered; it was his understanding Councilmember Petso’s questions had been addressed by the Finance Director. Councilmember Petso said postponing until next week would provide an opportunity for the Council to adopt a CIP that agrees with the budget because they currently do not entirely match. Packet Page 132 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 12 Councilmember Petso asked in what year the Alternatives Analysis was funded. Mr. English answered there is $1 million in 2019 and $1 million in 2020. Councilmember Petso commented that project, which formerly was imminent, had been pushed out to 2019. Mr. English agreed, noting the first three years of the CIP are constrained; projects in the first three years have secured funding or funding is reasonably expected to be secured. Funds for the Alternatives Analysis are not secured; therefore, that project is in the second three years. Mr. Williams advised if the budget and CIP do not match, the budget is controlling as only what is authorized in the budget can be spent. If more was listed in the CIP for a project than was included in the budget, a budget amendment would be required. Mr. Taraday agreed the budget controlled. If the Council wanted to spend money on a preliminary analysis of a train trench and peer review, Councilmember Petso asked whether the train trench would need to be in the CFP/CIP or was that a separate budget item. Mr. English answered the Council could chose to add it to the budget regardless of whether it was in the CIP. City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented there is no RCW that controls the CIP and it can be amended at any time. The CFP, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan and technically subject to the once a year limitation, can also be amended in conjunction with a budget amendment. Councilmember Petso asked whether the CIP needs to be revised to reflect decisions the Council makes during budget deliberations. Mr. Taraday answered because there is no RCW that speaks to the CIP, it is not illegal for the two documents to be inconsistent although he assumed the intent was for them to be consistent. To the extent there was any conflict, the budget controls. Councilmember Petso observed there are projects in the CIP that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan such bike lanes on 76th in the CIP and bike lane on 84th in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taraday responded the CIP and CFP are intended to be consistent. Because the CIP does not have a State law effect, to the extent there is an inconsistency, the CFP controls over the CIP. The CFP is adopted by ordinance as part of the Comprehensive Plan; the CIP is an internal document. Call for the Question COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmembers misunderstood that the above vote was for the Call for the Question. Reconsider COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION FOR THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Call for the Question MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment #1 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW THE MAIN MOTION. Packet Page 133 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 13 Mr. Williams requested Councilmembers email staff regarding what they would like to discuss at the study session. Mayor Earling commented what was lost in the Council’s discussion was the fact that the Council ultimately must approve any project before it moves forward which provides plenty of opportunity for investigation and detailed discussions. The decision on the CFP and CIP is in fact not a final decision but simply to keep projects on a list. In some cases it is a wish list; not including any indication of the value on the wish list such as for the Sunset Avenue project begins to neutralize the City’s ability to obtain grants. 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF DIGITAL UNIVERSAL CAMERA (DUC), STEERABLE PIPE RANGER VIDEO TRANSPORTER AND APPURTENANCES TO RETROFIT THE PUBLIC WORKS SEWER VIDEO CAMERA TRUCK Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the Public Works sewer video truck is used to periodically video the sanitary sewer pipe system to look for defects; those repairs are then added to the Wastewater CIP. The same needs to be done in the storm system which will require an expansion of the current capabilities. The proposed purchase of a higher definition camera will allow staff to video-inspect both sewer and storm pipes using the existing Cues truck/chassis, software and equipment. Cues has an approximately 80% market share in the State of Washington for this type of equipment. The new camera is compatible with an existing chassis and the proposal also includes the purchase of an updated chassis, Pipe Ranger 2. The intent is to begin videoing both storm and sewer pipes late 2014/early 2015. Mr. Williams explained the Storm Fund will pay the Sewer Fund for the trained staff to operate the truck; the cost of the equipment will be shared by the two utilities. In the interest of consistency spare parts, existing training, it is preferable to continue with the existing company, Cues, the reason for the recommendation for sole source procurement. The packet also includes a Vendor Certification stating Cues has not offered this at lower price to other clients. For example, Seattle paid $98,000 for the camera last year; Edmonds’s price is $91,000. He summarized this is a good case for a sole source procurement and he recommends Council approval. Councilmember Petso referred to an email the Council received tonight questioning the appropriateness of the sole source procurement. She asked why this was not first discussed at a study session. Mr. Williams answered it would typically have been discussed at a study session; however, the order needs to be submitted in a couple days in order to pay for it out of the 2014 budget. He assured no additional or different information would have been provided at a study session. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Finance Director had reviewed the sole source procurement and the concerns raised by the citizen. Mr. Williams advised it is not a finance question; the question is whether it meets the criteria in the City’s purchasing policy for a sole source procurement. Councilmember Petso asked whether the policy requires that other vendors be contacted. Mr. Williams answered no. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was a requirement for a firm or not to exceed price. Mr. Williams referred to the letter from Cues that outlines the cost. He assured if the invoice from Cues does not match their quote, it will not be approved. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT FROM CUES, INC. OF A VIDEO CAMERA SYSTEM AND VARIOUS SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS. Council President Buckshnis clarified the reason this vendor was selected was because the City has the equipment that fits this camera. Mr. Williams provided an analogy, rather than purchasing Toyota headlights and adapting them to fit your Honda, it is preferable to purchase Honda headlights. Packet Page 134 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 14 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015 Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained this item is further discussion regarding the 2015 work program and budget for the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) also known as the Downtown Edmonds Alliance. At the Council’s request, the EDBID’s 2015 budget compared to previous years will be provided. Pam Stuller, Walnut Street, President, EDBID Members Advisory Board, explained the EDBID has a very effective Board, and each of the 11 elected members take their role as stewards of the EDBID’s resources very seriously. The Board holds publicized semi-monthly meetings that are open to members and the public. The EDBID has accomplished a great deal since their inception approximately 18 months ago from the creation of the bylaws and work plan to a new name and official identity. Much of that progress is due to an enormous amount of volunteerism. As a young organization, Ms. Stuller recognized it took time to develop trust and create a successful precedent. The Board appreciates the scrutiny of the Council and seriousness with which they do their jobs and assured the elected board members share that commitment. While it is discouraging to hear about a petition to disband the EDBID, with over 320 businesses, there remains a tremendous amount of support for what the EDBID is doing. She looked forward to beginning the exciting and strategic work that the EDBID was created to implement. Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering, EDBID Treasurer, explained in response the Council’s request, the budget summary was revised to be more consistent with a balance sheet format. She displayed the balance sheet, highlighting the 2015 proposed budget that is in the work plan, 2014 end of year projection, year-to-date, and 2013 final financials. The 2015 proposed budget includes: • Beginning balance of $48,129 • Estimated revenues of $81,880 from assessments (assumes 92% collection rate) • Total revenue of $130,009 • Estimated expenses as outlined in work plan • Estimated ending balance of $46,009 She explained financial information has always been included in the EDBID minutes. At the request of a member a few months ago, the spreadsheet has been posted to the EDBID’s website. In the future the new balance sheet format will be presented at EDBID meetings and posted on the website. The Advisory Board meets at 8:00 a.m. the 2nd and 4th Thursday in Room 225 at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT’S 2015 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE WORK PLAN TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE EQUITY OF THE FEES ASSESSED BY THE CITY TO EDMONDS TO EDBID MEMBERS BE COMPLETED AND PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BY JUNE 2015. Packet Page 135 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 15 Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding and appreciation for the work done by the Advisory Board. The reason she was proposing these amendments was because in talking with business owners and the fact that a petition was being circulated, there is a lot of conflict and people who are unhappy with the way things have been done as well as how the EDBID was set up. Her amendments are an attempt to resolve the concerns she has heard; unless the concerns of the membership are considered, the EDBID will be unable to move forward in a manner that will work for all the members. For example, although friends of the EDBID and all the members of the EDBID were invited to a get-together, the voucher based on $12 lunches indicated only 26 people attended which was not a good turnout. Councilmember Bloom referred to an email she received at 6:15 p.m. today that she forwarded to Councilmembers expressing concerns with the EDBID. She stated the membership of the EDBID is not supporting the Advisory Board’s work; the business owners she has talked said they wish they had been asked about the Ed! brand and there are questions about the square footage fee assessment. She summarized many members are dissatisfied but are afraid to speak their mind. She recognized the hard work done by the Advisory Board and assumed they would not have to work so hard if they had the support of the membership. With regard to the proposed amendment, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the square footage range for assessments is too large; the EDBID essentially assesses a 5,000 square business and a business with a very small space at a similar rate. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council has full discretion to review and make changes to assessments. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded everything about the EDBID is subject to the Council’s discretion. He noted to the extent the direction in Councilmember Bloom’s motion required a financial expense for the EDBID, it did not fit within any of the categories of authorized expenses. Councilmember Petso asked whether a more appropriate way would be to schedule a review of the EDBID fees as a future Council agenda item. Mr. Taraday commented the Council has a lot of power over the EDBID; he was unsure procedurally what would need to happen to review the assessments but he could research that in the meantime. Action on Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Bloom requested the Council President schedule a review of the EDBID Assessments on an upcoming study session. Recognizing that the issue of sending businesses to collections was also not a work plan item, she requested that issue be discussed at a future study session. She pointed out 29 business owners have been sent to collections. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST CLARITY BE ADDED TO ITEM C, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION, AND ITEM D, MEMBER ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ANONYMOUS INPUT FROM BID MEMBERS. Councilmember Bloom referred to the EDBID’s written response to this suggestion stating this could be incorporated. She requested specific language be included regarding obtaining anonymous input from EDBID members as some members are not comfortable sharing their thoughts. Councilmember Petso asked what specific language Councilmember Bloom would like to have added. Councilmember Bloom suggested Survey Monkey surveys be conducted on a regular basis to get input Packet Page 136 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 16 related to the work the Board is doing. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Doherty whether that was something he could assist the EDBID with. Mr. Doherty answered yes. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the motion included direction to act on the surveys, pointing out Survey Monkey is very unscientific. Councilmember Bloom said she wanted the Advisory Board to get input from people who are uncomfortable sharing input with the Board. She was not suggesting how they would use the information, only providing an avenue for members to provide input without being identified. Council President Buckshnis asked how the Board would use the input from such surveys. Councilmember Bloom responded she hoped the Board would use the information to inform how they spend the EDBID members’ money. Action on Amendment #2 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT BUDGETED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN ITEM B TO $6,000 FOR 2015 WHICH EQUALS $500 PER MONTH. Councilmember Bloom said the reason for this motion was because there was not the support of the EDBID that she would like to see at this point and she anticipated $6,000 for administrative services would be more acceptable to the membership than $17,000. She explained $6,000 would allow the EDBID to hire a contract administrative person at the rate of $25/hour for 20 hours/month or 5 hours/week. That person could do minutes, post on the EDBID website, etc.; the EDBID could consolidate what the person did and use the person very effectively. Council President Buckshnis referred to the EDBID’s written response that there is a lot of administrative work. Her issue is ensuring the 501(c)3 is totally separate; the EDBID administrator cannot provide administrative services to the 501(c)3. Ms. Clyborne advised their research of other BIDs with 501(c)3s found they have an agreement with the city for payment for services. That has not yet been fully vetted by the board. She advised there are other administrative costs in addition to hiring a consultant such as the post office box, supplies, website fees, etc. Action on Amendment #3 AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES. Amendment #4 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION, TO REMOVE ITEM K, RESEARCH OF POTENTIAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, FROM THE WORK PLAN. Councilmember Bloom reiterated due to the conflict in the membership, she felt this was not the time to seek new members. Councilmember Petso asked whether this was something the Council could do when/if they wished. Mr. Taraday suggested to the extent this required a financial expense on the part of the EDBID, it did not fit in any of the categories of expense authorized in the implementing legislation, probably should not be undertaken by the EDBID and therefore would be inappropriate to include in the work plan. Exploring a modification to the boundaries would be more appropriately undertaken by the City or the Economic Packet Page 137 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 17 Development Director. Mr. Taraday provided further context; the Council is approving the budget for the EDBID, authoring them to spend money on certain items. This does not fit within the categories of expense that the City authorized when it created the EDBID; it can be worked on by City staff. He suggested the motion be acted on. If this was not a budget item and was just something the EDBID planned to work on, Councilmember Peterson questioned why it was not appropriate for the EDBID to include it in their work plan. The budget implication would occur if/when a decision was made to expand the boundary. To the extent the EDBID wants to do leg work to explore changing the boundaries, they do not need to come to the Council for authorization if it does not require an expense. That effort would be similar to what occurred prior to forming the EDBID which did not require Council authorization. Mr. Taraday responded by keeping this item in the work plan and the administrative person working on it, that would be an inappropriate use of the funds. Councilmember Peterson suggested if it is not in the work plan, some members may object to the Board talking to potential new members. Mr. Taraday summarized the Council’s role is related to approving expenditures; anything that occurs outside that is not within the purview of this action item. Councilmember Mesaros observed there was nothing in the budget related to Item K and the motion is not in order as it does not reflect budget items which are the Council’s purview. Action on Amendment #4 AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND MESAROS VOTING NO. Amendment #5 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE $10,000 ALLOCATED TO THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM. Councilmember Bloom explained the EDBID membership should not be expected put their money toward the 501(c)3, a separate organization that the EDBID is forming. It made no sense to her and she felt those funds should be retained within the EDBID. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding the EDBID would be in charge of the small grants, not the 501(c)3. Ms. Stuller explained the intent of the small grants program is to harness the power of the membership by providing them grants to help be the boots on the ground to get more done in the coming year. The grants are intended to completely apply to the scope of work and are a way to help catalyze additional action from the membership. Ms. Clyborne advised the small grants program is entirely unrelated to the 501(c)3. Councilmember Petso relayed the EDBID could have included $10,000 in their budget for miscellaneous projects; by setting up a grant program there will be application deadlines, documentation, etc. Ms. Stuller agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the intent was to spend the money “come heck or high water” or would the funds be held if no appropriate applications are submitted. Ms. Stuller advised the funds would not be granted unless appropriate applications were received. Councilmember Petso suggested an amendment requiring each proposed grant be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the applicable RCW and ECC provisions prior to the award of a grant. Ms. Stuller had no objection to adding that language to the work plan. Councilmember Petso advised she would probably not support the proposed amendment and would make the amendment she described. Action on Amendment #5 AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES. Packet Page 138 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 18 Amendment #6 and Action COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING AS THE NEXT TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH J OF THE WORK PLAN, “EACH PROPOSED GRANT WILL BE REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 35.87A.010 AND EDMONDS CITY CODE 3.75.030 PRIOR TO AWARD OF A GRANT.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Peterson voiced his opposition to the suggestion of having further discussion regarding some issues at a Council study session, anticipating a series of micromanaging meetings. He recognized it was up to the Council President when/if to schedule that discussion. Councilmember Bloom suggested the Council also discuss having a representative attend EDBID Advisory Board meetings; she recommended the Council President and one other Councilmember. The Council needs to be very involved in the oversight of the EDBID as the EDBID Advisory Board is the only one of the City’s boards that has the authority to spend money. She disagreed with Councilmember Peterson because the Council is responsible even if it possibly means micromanaging. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested this may be an appropriate topic for the Council retreat in early 2015. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso requested the Council President schedule the EDBID fees and collection policy on a future study session. Council President Buckshnis advised she has scheduled those as well as research of a potential boundary adjustment on the December 9 study session agenda. 12. REVIEW & POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY Public Works Director Williams advised this was discussed at last week’s study session. A resolution and policy in place since 1978 establishes guidelines for trimming and removing trees in the right-of-way that are not street trees and require any trimming or removal to be authorized via a right-of-way construction permit issued by the City. The policy authorizes specific reasons for trimming or removing a tree in the right-of-way related to safety such as the tree impedes sight lines, is diseased and in danger of falling, or is causing damage or significant maintenance to public infrastructure. Neither the policy nor the resolution included the ability to authorize removal/trimming of a tree in the right-of-way that is damaging private infrastructure. The proposed policy would add the ability for the City to issue a permit if a tree in the right-of-way is causing damage to private infrastructure. The Tree Board reviewed the issue and provided a recommended policy. He referred to three revisions he suggested at last week’s study session, two that were typos and a third, to remove the requirement to obtain a right-of-way permit to trim/remove a tree over 8 feet tall. He pointed out an 8-foot tall tree could be 1-2 inches in diameter. He reviewed the practical implications of requiring a right-of-way permit to trim/remove any tree feet tall over a height of 8 feet: apply for a right-of-way construction permit, minimum price $115; and hire a certified arborist to prepare a report stating the tree meets the criteria for removal, at a cost of several hundred dollars. He doubted many property owners would go to that effort to trim/remove a tree of that size. Further, a tree of that size was unlikely to be causing safety issues or damaging private infrastructure. He noted one of the criteria in the proposed policy was a tree could be trimmed/removed if it had grown to a size that was inappropriate for its current location. Packet Page 139 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 19 Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with removing that requirement in view of how hard the Tree Board worked on the proposed policy. The Tree Board includes a certified arborist and others with experience with trees. She consulted the Tree Board Chair, Susan Paine, who is very familiar with Seattle’s tree code, regarding the proposed change. Ms. Paine’s response was a permit to trim an 8-foot tree is needed; she envisioned a person harming a young tree under 6 inches in diameter by harsh pruning. Councilmember Bloom referred to trees in the right-of-way that have so harshly pruned that they do not grow properly. She preferred to retain the requirement for a permit for trees 8 feet in height. Mr. Williams understood Ms. Paine’s point of view but questioned the City’s ability to control pruning via a permit program. He reminded a tree would need to meet the criteria for removal before a permit could be issued. He suggested an educational campaign citing the national standards on tree pruning rather than a regulatory approach may be more successful in addressing those concerns. Councilmember Petso provided a scenario: a homeowner with a 5-inch diameter tree over 8 feet tall located in the City right-of-way trims the tree periodically. Under the proposed code, that homeowner would be in violation of the code. Mr. Williams agreed the homeowner would be in violation, both in the proposed code and the existing code. Councilmember Petso asked about enforcement. Mr. Williams advised enforcement occurs when a situation is brought to the City’s attention. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding under the proposed code, a property owner would be required to obtain a right- of-way permit to trim a tree larger than 6-inches in diameter or over 8 feet tall. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Johnson referred to the criteria, observing most of them are very specific and not subject to opinion. However, the criteria that a tree has outgrown its location could be disputed and she preferred it not be included as a criteria. Mr. Williams advised the permit requires a State certified arborist determine the tree has outgrown its location. The City needs to have that expertise available as well; there is currently no certified arborist on staff. When the tree code is presented to Council it will include some resource requests. Councilmember Johnson stated the determination that a tree has outgrown its location is a judgment call and even two arborists could have a difference of opinion. She preferred not to have a judgment call be a criterion, commenting there are historic trees that may be more valuable than the shade they create. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIOUSLY. Councilmember Bloom commented the report by a certified arborist would address Councilmember Johnson’s concerns. She agreed it was a subjective, noting there are also plans for a Heritage Tree Program which hopefully will protect valuable, old trees. A certified arborist will be able to determine whether a young tree has outgrown its location or if it is a valuable, old, native tree. Councilmember Johnson recalled when this first arose, the example staff provided was a very mature cedar tree whose roots essentially destroyed the adjacent property owners’ grass. Mr. Williams commented it was a massive Redwood tree that grew very fast. That tree is causing some of the problem listed as criteria for removal/trimming in the policy and the policy would allow roots to be pruned, etc. Another issue with a tree like that is the cost to trim or remove it. As long as the tree is not damaging public infrastructure, the property owner would initiate the process, pay the permit fee, hire the arborist, and pay for removal/trimming if the City is convinced it meets the criteria. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY AS AMENDED BY THE EDMONDS CITIZENS TREE BOARD. Councilmember Peterson clarified this was the policy on page 988-990 of the packet (includes amendments recommended by Mr. Williams). Packet Page 140 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 20 Councilmember Bloom preferred to vote on the Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy recommended by the Tree Board. Mr. Williams distributed the policy as recommended by the Tree Board. (includes the requirement for a permit for an 8-foot tall tree). Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CODE ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE TREE BOARD. Amendment #2 and Action COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO FIX THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS POINTED OUT BY MR. WILLIAMS AND CHANGE THE TITLE OF SECTION 5 TO “REPLANTING. RECOMMENDED REPLANTING RATIOS.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. Kurt Greiner, Edmonds, referred to two funding proposals in the Council’s allocation of $250,000, $10,000 for a peer review and $90,000 for a train trench study. He urged the Council not to approve the $10,000 peer review because a firm could not be asked to compare the current $10,000 study because it was not complete. He referred to the Tetra Tech Report which states until the design is complete there are a myriad unknown conditions that cannot be specifically accounted for in the construction cost estimate. He relayed an email from Phil Lovell that the estimate in the Tetra Tech report can be judged as inadequate in depth but further refinement and/or accuracy of any estimate at this point would be pointless without further design development. After reviewing the Tetra Tech report and applying standards he was familiar with, he emailed the Council an outline of other ways of doing this that are less expensive, more environmental and will save time. Until those are properly identified, he did not see how a peer review could be done. He urged the Council to approve the $90,000 study to obtain that information so that a peer review can be conducted. With regard to alternatives such as moving the ferry terminal, he pointed out ferries cannot dock there in bad weather, the site is not ready and the funds are not available. With regard to an overpass, a study was completed in 2012. He concluded the City needed to consider alternatives; it is good business as well as required by NEPA. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the opportunity for public comment. Councilmember Petso explained although she initially requested $10,000 for a peer review, she withdrew that request when a consensus emerged that it was not really a study worthy of being peer reviewed. Her current proposal is $90,000 for a preliminary study and $10,000 for a peer review of that preliminary study. Finance Director Scott James reviewed the Council’s list of changes Proposal # Description Cash Increase (Decrease) 1 Veterans Park Design ($10,000) 2 Train Trench Study ($90,000) & Peer Review ($10,000) ($100,000) Packet Page 141 of 394 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 21 3 Highway 99 Study and Planning ($100,000) 4 Planned Action EIS (2015 Phase 1 $75,000, 2016 Phase 2 $75,000) ($75,000) 5 Building & Facility Maintenance Needs Study ($20,000) Subtotal of Allocations ($305,000) Amount Requests Exceed Balance to Allocate ($55,000) Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling suggested deferring further discussion to next week. Council President Buckshnis commented although she was ready to vote on the budget now, she encouraged Councilmembers to provide questions/concerns/changes to staff so the process can move forward during future budget discussions. Councilmember Petso advised in addition to one-time expenditures the Council has allocated from the $250,000, she is considering funding Police Department Decision Package 3, ongoing cost to restore the Crime Prevention Officer. She will forward Councilmembers the original decision package which was pulled when the Fire District 1 bill was received. To help cover the cost, she is reviewing the budget for ongoing expenditures that could be convert to onetime items; one potential source is converting the Finance Department Intern to a one-time expenditure rather than ongoing. Mr. James advised he will post the latest revisions to the 2015 preliminary budget book changes and the Council allocation of the $250,000 to the City’s website tomorrow. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the Swedish-Edmonds auction last Friday raised $708,000. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Packet Page 142 of 394 Ed! Grants Program Grant deadline for Small Grants Program requests of $1,500 or less: Quarterly (January 15, April 15, July 15 and October 15) Grant deadline for Partnership Program requests of $5,000 or less: Semi-annually (June 15, December 15) Mission of Ed! The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka Ed!) is to encourage, promote and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of downtown Edmonds for the mutual benefit of businesses in the district. Our goal is to ensure the downtown Edmonds business district stays lively, attractive and prosperous. Purpose of Ed! Grants Program The Small Grants Program and Partnership Program, managed through the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, help harness the power of our local business community. The Grants program utilizes a grassroots approach to identify projects and allocate funds for approved grants. Project Category Community Events Hospitality and special public events, including holiday decorations, street performers/artists, festivals, fairs, historic education/heritage advocacy; Neighborhood Marketing Initiative Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns; Business Recruitment & Retention May include, but is not limited to, education/seminars, market research, business recruitment, business fairs, conferences. Safety & Cleanliness May include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements Appearance & Environment May include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture Transportation May include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation Historic education/heritage advocacy Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M Pilot Packet Page 143 of 394 Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M 2 General Criteria for Small Grants Program and Partnership Program Project submitted must meet the Ed! mission and comply with the approved purposes and categories of the Grants Program.: Project must not duplicate existing services or initiatives; Project must be realistic in scope and qualify for readiness and feasibility; Project must not benefit a sole enterprise, company or member; Project must include letters of support and/or demonstrate community support; Grantees must agree to include the approved Ed! logo and acknowledgement of Ed! funding in their printed materials, website and other collateral materials. Project must encourage collaborative efforts. Additional Criteria for Partnership Program Projects must have existing partial funding commitments, have significant matching funds, and/or generally demonstrate diverse sources of income; Project must encourage partnerships between private enterprise, members and/or community organizations. Eligibility Small Grants Program: Ed! Members in good standing may apply or sponsor a grant application. Partnership Program: Ed! Members in good standing alone, or in collaborative partnership with nonprofit agencies, or private companies, may apply or sponsor a grant application. Requirements Submit 1 original plus three (3) copies of the grant application with the following information: • Application cover page • Name of project • Project start and end dates • Description of project including goals, expected attendance, stakeholders, income projections • Target audiences • Describe measurable goals and community benefits • Name and qualifications of team members • Timeline and schedule of events or targeted dates • Detailed line item budget, including other sources of funding or revenue • Budget detail must include any contract staff, professional services and/or administrative costs • Letters of support • Contact name and information Packet Page 144 of 394 Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M 3 Process Each grant application is reviewed by the Grant committee, composed of three (3) members. In addition, each proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030. The Grant committee will submit its recommendation of awards to the Ed! Members Advisory Board who will approve the final awards. Timeline APPLICATIONS DUE AWARD DECISIONS Quarterly Small Grants Program January 15th March 1st April 15th June 1st July 15th September 1st October 15th December 1st Twice-Annual Partnership Program June 15th August 1st December 15th February 1st Payment of Grant Funds Grant funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis after delivery to Ed! of corresponding itemized invoice(s), together with supporting receipts or other materials. Completion of Project One month after the completion of the Project, a final report will be sent to Ed!. The report will include: outcomes, results of measured goals, community benefits, participation, financial statement of expenses and revenues, including amount of award used. Any unused portion of award will be returned, as well as the complete award if the project is canceled within the agreed timeline. Packet Page 145 of 394 Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M 4 APPLICATION COVER PAGE Requested Program: Small Grants ________ Partnership Program ________ Member applicant: ______________________________________ Name of owner: ______________________________________ Contact info: ______________________________________ Amount requested: _______________________ Start of project: _______________________ End of project: _______________________ Description of project as attachment will include: • Name of project • Team members • Timeline • Budget with projected sources of income • Goal outcomes/target audience I, ___________________________, agree with the conditions and stipulations of of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!) Grants Program. ________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant ________________________________________________ ______________ Print name Date Packet Page 146 of 394 AM-7429 8. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project, and to Reduce the Flooding at Dayton St. and SR104. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at February 3, 2014 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On March 18, 2014, Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Shannon & Wilson for $314,459 to complete the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylighting and perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. Narrative The original scope and budget for this PSA (No. 6208) had several assumptions that have now changed. In addition, the Willow Creek daylighting alternatives that are planned through Marina Beach Park have to be coordinated with the ongoing master planning process for that park. The original scope assumed the City could get access to the Unocal/Chevron property for surveying. A portion of the proposed daylighted channel would run through the southwest portion of this property. The property also contains obsolete culverts within the current open-channel portion of Willow Creek. The original scope assumed that the City would have access to these culverts to design and permit their removal. The City did not obtain access to the Unocal/Chevron property due to company policy prohibiting third parties on their property during an open environmental case with Washington Department of Ecology. This supplement modifies Tasks 3 and removes Tasks 10 and 11 from the original scope (related to work on the Unocal/Chevron property). It reallocates the funds towards the following added tasks: Task 13 - Harbor Square Outfall Storm Improvements Task 14 - Dayton St. Isolation Survey Task 15 - Dayton St. Isolation Analysis and Design Task 16 - Dayton St. Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits Task 17 - Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys Task 18 - Management Reserve Tasks 13 through 16 are part of the recommendations in the July 2013 Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study . Adding these tasks plus Task 17 to this PSA is an efficient way of making Packet Page 147 of 394 headway on both the Willow Creek Daylight/Marsh Project and the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project. In addition, Task 12 (Public Outreach Meeting) has been revised to include consultant time to participate in the Marina Beach master planning project. The master planning process has also extended the schedule for the project by seven months increasing the project management costs. Fiscal Impact The aforementioned deletions, changes, and added scope result in a net increase in the PSA by $38,160. Additional Tasks 13 through 16 total $61,559 and will be funded though the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project. Note that the City has separate PSA for $90,877 with another consultant (The Louis Berger Group, Inc., formerly SAIC who completed the Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study) to perform predesign services for a stormwater pump station on Dayton St. This pump station was also a recommended by the Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study. With the PSA for the pump station plus addition of Tasks 13 through 16 and part of Task 18, the current 2015 authorization of $100,000 for the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project will be exceeded. A “carry forward” budget amendment will be presented to Council in February 2015 to move $68,000 from this project authorized but unused in 2014 to the 2015 authorization. The expenditures for the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project that exceed the current $100,000 authorization will only be expended by the consultants, if and when the “carry forward” budget amendment is approved by Council. Task 17 and part of Task 18 will be funded by Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Project. The portion of the PSA funded by the Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Project will decrease by $29,664. None of the affected tasks are funded by the current or most recently awarded Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) grants. Attachments Shannon & Wilson Supplemental Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 01/23/2015 09:00 AM Public Works Phil Williams 01/23/2015 10:07 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 10:25 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/23/2015 10:46 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 11:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/21/2015 08:17 AM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 148 of 394 Original Contract No. Supplemental Agreement 1 No. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH · EDMONDS, WA 98020 · 425-771-0220 · FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division DAVE EARLING MAYOR SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration project, dated March 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, additional work has been identified for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project; to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh project; and to reduce flooding at Dayton Street & SR104; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of March 26, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $314,459 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $38,160 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not-to-exceed amount of $352,619 ($314,459 plus $38,160). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit A to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Page 149 of 394 DONE this day of , 20 . CITY OF EDMONDS SHANNON & WILSON, INC. By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Title: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 150 of 394 ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON 400 NORTH 34th STREET – SUITE 100 PO BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WA 98103 206-632-8020 FAX 206-695-6777 TDD: 1-800-833-6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-12393-401 January 22, 2015 Mr. Jerry Shuster Stormwater Engineering Program Manager City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PROPOSAL – AMENDMENT TO MODIFY SCOPE AND BUDGET WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT, FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. 6208 Dear Mr. Shuster: I am submitting this letter to request an amendment to our existing contract number 6208 issued by the City of Edmonds (the City) on March 26, 2014. The amendment includes reassignment of scope and budget from unused design and permitting tasks to new design and permitting tasks associated with the Willow Creek Daylight, and Dayton Street and State Route (SR) -104 stormwater projects, and request for additional funding. The proposal herein summarizes the changes, transfers of scope, revised budget and schedule. REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES The following items shall be deleted from the scope of services:  Task 10. Willow Creek Abandoned Culvert Removal Design  Task 11. Willow Creek Abandoned Culvert Removal Permits The following items shall be added/revised in the scope of services. Task 1. Project Management (REVISE)  Assumptions – Work period occurs March 1 through December 2014 July 2015. Packet Page 151 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 2 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Task 3. Topographic Survey (REVISE) The primary features to be surveyed include:  Daylight channel area – BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) railway crossing, future daylight channel, and Chevron Environmental Management Company (Chevron)/Unocal property bordering the daylight channel. Consultant will provide BNSF right-of-entry using BNSF’s temporary occupancy permit process. (REVISE)  Abandoned culvert demolition area. Complete topographic surveys and perform survey of wetland and OHW delineations. (REVISE) Task 12. Public Outreach Meetings (REVISE) Consultant will develop an oversize figure and presentation and attend one public outreach meeting related to the Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study. The Consultant will prepare and attend up to three additional preparation and public meetings associated with the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. Deliverables  Public outreach meeting materials. Assumptions  Not applicable. Task 13. Harbor Square Outfall Stormwater Improvements (ADD) The Consultant will use modeling information from the Willow Creek Daylight and Dayton Street Stormwater improvement studies and topographic surveys to evaluate pipe elevation, tidal backflow, and flood conditions for design of tidegates and grading of outfall channels at the Harbor Square Stormwater Outfalls (Attachment A-1). The target design elevations will be documented in a letter report to the City. Upon approval of the recommendations by the City, the Consultant will prepare a drawing set and construction cost estimate for the proposed improvements. It is anticipated to include a cover sheet and one detail sheet. The Consultant will prepare a bid package assuming the City’s Small Works contract procedure. Packet Page 152 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 3 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Deliverables  Harbor Square Outfall DRAFT Letter Report and 90 Percent Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Harbor Square Outfall FINAL Letter Report and Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy) Assumptions  Topographic survey in the Harbor Square Outfall areas are complete.  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD Standards.  Dewatering will be required and dewatering plans are not included in the design and assumed to be the Contractor’s responsibility.  Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) will use City standards and a separate TESC sheet is not necessary.  No utility relocations are required.  Stormwater improvements do not require geotechnical design and can use standard plans and specifications.  Construction Contractor will prepare required traffic control plans.  Improvements are generally simple in nature and it is assumed Consultant can proceed directly to 90 Percent design. Task 14. Dayton Isolation Survey (ADD) The additional features to be surveyed are the Dayton Street isolation berm areas north of the Shellabarger Creek marsh. The Consultant will perform limited topographic survey of the project area to support analysis and design of the proposed improvements (Attachment A-1). The survey shall include the following:  Topographic survey of an approximate 20- x 20-foot area around the proposed new manhole including all underground utilities (see Attachment A-1). The survey shall also pick up the pipe invert elevations of the closest upstream and downstream manholes that extend beyond the survey area for both the Dayton Street System and the ferry queuing area drainage system.  The existing manhole along SR 104 to be plugged (including type, size, invert elevations, pipe sizes, materials, and rim elevation).  1-foot topographic survey approximately 50- x 50-foot wide area just north of the 24-inch pipe inlet. Within this area, locate surface features (lane edges, abandoned Packet Page 153 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 4 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 ferry queuing lane edge, sidewalk, pavement edge, trees, shrubs), changes in grade, and low point along gravel shoulder.  Surveyed cross sections (at approximately 75-foot intervals) between the above topographic surveyed area and Dayton Street. The sections shall extend from the east travel lane on SR 104 to the existing right-of-way. Survey shall pick up lane edges, abandoned ferry queuing lane edge, sidewalk, pavement edge, changes in grade, and low point in section. There shall be approximately five survey cross sections.  Survey of wetland boundary and Ordinary High Water (OHW) markers. The Consultant shall include this information on an AutoCAD base map covering the surveyed areas. Property lines shall be shown based on assessor maps. Deliverables:  Draft Survey CAD file  Final Survey CAD file (incorporating any comments from design team and/or City) Assumptions:  Datum shall be City of Edmonds  Traffic control permits will be obtained by Survey Subconsultant  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD standards Task 15. Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation Stormwater Analysis and Design Consultant shall update the previously prepared XP SWMM model of this system to include the additional Dayton Street isolation topographic survey information, isolation berms and pipe plugging and new connections between the Dayton Street and Ferry Queuing area drainage system. Modeling simulations will include the 2- and 25-year storm events. Using the modeling results, the Consultant will evaluate the need for an isolation berm near the 24-inch pipe inlet. The berm was proposed as the ultimate solution in this area; it may not be appropriate as an early action improvement until such time as other improvements are made to the Shellabarger Creek system (because in the interim it could potentially lead to increased flooding of SR-104). The Consultant will use the model and make a recommendation to the City summarized in a letter report. The letter report will include recommendations for the improvements to be advanced to design as well as summarize applicable permits identified in the following task. A site visit and geotechnical review of existing reports and information in the Dayton Street and Harbor Square area will be used to provide preliminary foundation and construction design recommendations for the new catch basins and isolation berm. Packet Page 154 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 5 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Upon approval of the recommendations by the City, the Consultant will prepare a drawing set and construction cost estimate for the proposed improvements. It is anticipated to include a cover sheet and one detail sheet. The Consultant will prepare a bid package assuming the City’s Small Works contract procedure. Deliverables  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation DRAFT Letter Report (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation Geotechnical Design Recommendations (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation DRAFT 90 Percent Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation FINAL Letter Report and Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy) Assumptions  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD Standards.  Geotechnical design recommendations will be based on reports and data to be provided by the City. No field explorations or laboratory analysis will be performed.  Dewatering will be required and dewatering plans are not included in the design and assumed to be the Contractor’s responsibility.  TESC will use City standards and a separate TESC sheet is not necessary.  No utility relocations are required.  Stormwater improvements do not require geotechnical design and can use standard plans and specifications.  Construction Contractor will prepare required traffic control plans.  Improvements are generally simple in nature and it is assumed Consultant can proceed directly to 90 Percent design. Task 16. Dayton Street Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits This task involves permitting the Dayton Street Isolation and the Harbor Square Outfall retrofits in Tasks 13 and 15. The Consultant will provide environmental studies and supporting documents, as well as develop the permit applications for the construction plans. Permits included in this scope of services include: Packet Page 155 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 6 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Nationwide Permit 27 for Habitat Restoration)  Endangered Species Act review  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval  City Shoreline and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemption  The Consultant will provide coordination with the permit agencies and respond to comments. Deliverables  Wetland and OHW delineation  Special Project Information Form for Endangered Species Act review under the Programmatic Restoration Biological Assessment  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Limit 8 form  Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application  Shoreline and SEPA exemption letter Assumptions  The project will falls within a SEPA and Shoreline exemption and we will provide a letter describing how the projects fall within these exemptions.  Costs for permit application fees are not included.  City will apply for any grading, demolition or other local permits that may be required.  Section 106, Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation and tribal consultation will occur separately from this task.  90 percent plans will be submitted with the permits. Task 17. Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys The restoration project includes excavations of the upper marsh to connect Willow and Shellabarger Creeks to the tidal channels and mudflat areas. Currently, this area of the marsh is covered with dense cattails, and development of a natural tidal connection through erosion processes would take considerable time. The survey will be performed to provide a base map and support design of the tributary “creek” connections with the tidal channels in the Preliminary Design Phase of work. Packet Page 156 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 7 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Deliverables:  Draft Survey CAD file  Final Survey CAD file (incorporating any comments from design team and/or City) Assumptions:  Datum shall be City of Edmonds  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using City’s CAD standards Task 18. Management Reserve This task is a budget reserve item for unforeseen project circumstances. The management reserve will be made available upon authorization of the City of Edmonds Project Manager. Authorization by the City’s Project Manager will include a written summary of the additional scope, budget, deliverables, schedule and cost associated with assigned Management Reserve tasks. REVISED COST Table 1 summarizes the revised cost estimate for this contract amendment (see enclosed). The revised costs include the following deductions, transfers and additions:  Task 11 – Abandoned Task 2 – Cultural Resources (COMPLETE – ON BUDGET)  Task 3 – Survey and Utility Locates (COMPLETE – UNDER BUDGET BY $3,914)  Task 6 – Geotechnical Assessment (COMPLETE – UNDER BUDGET BY $7,244)  Task 8 – Landowner Working Meetings (IN PROGRESS – UNDER BUDGET BY $3,300)  Task 10 – Abandoned Culvert Design (NOT USED – AVAILABLE BUDGET $18,005)  Culvert Permits (NOT USED – AVAILABLE BUDGET $22,210) The current underrun budget available for transfer is $51,373, not including $3,369 that would remain in Task 8 for additional Marina Beach Park Master Plan. The $51,373 funds can be used to transfer to new tasks or add scope to existing tasks. The proposed, additional scope budgets are summarized below and shown in Table 1.  Task 1 – Project Management (6-month Extension – $2,200 Add. Note – The $2,200 amount is equal to the $2,200 originally shown for subconsultant management, but not calculated in Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s [S&W’s] March 2014 proposal.) Packet Page 157 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 8 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401  Task 8 – Landowner Working Meetings (Transfer $3,300 budget underrun to Task 12 Public Outreach Meetings).  Task 12 – Public Outreach Meetings (Add scope for 3 additional public outreach meetings and transfer $3,300 from Task 8).  Task 13 – Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit (Add scope for outfall flapgate and tidal channel retrofit design plans and specifications for budget of $8,595).  Task 14 –Dayton Street Isolation, Topographic Survey (Add scope for topographic survey at Dayton Street Isolation area for budget of $7,500).  Task 15 – Dayton Street Isolation, Design (Add scope for design of Dayton Street Isolation from Shellabarger Creek for budget of $18,703).  Task 16 – Permits for Dayton Street Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Retrofits (Add scope for design of Dayton Street and Harbor Square permits for budget of $23,470).  Task 17 – Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys (Add scope for surveys for budget of $10,754). The additional work amendment budget total is $61,342 (Table 1), which does not include using the $3,369 for Marina Beach Park Master Plan meeting attendance. An additional $38,160 is needed to accommodate the additions, deletions, and transfers shown in Table 2. The revise the total contract value would be $352,619. REVISED SCHEDULE The project schedule has been extended to mirror the Marina Beach Park Master Plan (Table 3). The Willow Creek Daylight schedule needs to extend through July 31, 2015, to accommodate incorporating information from the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, completing the Feasibility Study, and providing final invoicing to the City. LIMITATIONS S&W has prepared the enclosed, “Important Information About Your Geotechnical/ Environmental Proposal” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals. Packet Page 158 of 394 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 9 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal and be of service to you. Please let me know if you have questions regarding this proposal. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. David Cline, P.E., C.F.M. Vice President – Hydraulic Engineer DRC/drc Enc: Table 1 – Amendment 1 – Cost Estimate Table 2 – Amendment 1 – Cost Addition, Deletions, Transfer Summary Table 3 – Revised Schedule Attachment A-1 – Dayton Isolation Survey Area Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal Packet Page 159 of 394 TA B L E 1 AM E N D M E N T 1 - C O S T E S T I M A T E SHANNON & WILSON, INC. PI C ( V . P . ) P r o j . M a n . G e o t e c h / C i v Ci v i l , Ge o t e c h , B i o C A D / G I S Ad m i n , Re p r o , W P HO U R TO T A L HO U R L A B O R SU B T O T A L S & W E x p e n s e A n c h o r Q E A C o n f l . C R C L o u i s B e r g e r D H A EXPENSE SUBTOTAL Bi l l i n g C a t e g o r y VP ( P r i n c ) S r . A s s o c . S r . P r o f P r o f I V . S r . T e c h S r . A d m i n Ta s k s De s c r i p t i o n $2 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 8 5 . 0 0 $ 1 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 1 5 . 0 0 $ 9 5 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 1 Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t 012 0 0 0 0 1 2 $ 2 , 2 2 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 , 2 2 0 Mo n t h l y M e e t i n g s / C a l l s ( 6 - M o n t h s t o J u l y 2 0 1 5 ) 12 1 2 $ 2 , 2 2 0 $2,220 13 De s i g n - H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t 1 4 4 8 0 0 1 7 7 0 $ 8 , 4 9 5 $ 1 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 0 0 $ 8 , 5 9 5 St o r m w a t e r T i d a l a n d F l o o d E l e v a t i o n R e v i e w 41 5 $ 5 9 0 $590 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 44 $ 5 0 0 $500 De s i g n a n d C o s t E s t i m a t e 1 4 4 0 1 6 6 1 $ 7 , 4 0 5 $ 1 0 0 $7,505 14 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 10 4 0 4 0 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4 , 7 5 2 $ 4 , 7 5 2 $ 5 , 8 5 7 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 14 4 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $4,752 $ 5 , 8 5 7 15 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - D e s i g n 9 2 1 8 0 1 4 4 4 7 $ 6 , 3 3 5 $ 1 3 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 $ 0 $ 1 7 , 3 0 2 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 Su r v e y C o o r d i n a t i o n 22 4 $ 4 4 0 $ 9 0 3 $ 1 , 3 4 3 St o r m w a t e r A n a l y s i s D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n 11 $ 1 2 5 $ 4 , 8 8 6 $ 5 , 0 1 1 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 11 $ 1 2 5 $ 1 0 , 7 2 8 $ 1 0 , 8 5 3 Ge o t e c h n i c a l D e s i g n R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 81 2 1 2 4 3 6 $ 4 , 8 0 0 $ 1 3 5 $4,935 De s i g n a n d C o s t E s t i m a t e 12 2 5 $ 8 4 5 $ 6 5 0 $ 1 , 4 9 5 16 Pe r m i t s - D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n a n d H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t 11 2 0 1 3 7 3 5 1 4 1 9 9 $ 2 3 , 1 8 5 $ 2 8 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O r d i n a r y H i g h W a t e r 24 0 1 5 4 6 1 $ 6 , 8 3 5 $ 3 5 $6,870 Sp e c i a l P r o j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m f o r P r o g r a m m a t i c R e s t o r a t i o n B i o l o g i c a l As s e s s m e n t 22 5 4 3 1 $ 3 , 6 8 5 $ 5 0 $3,735 Jo i n t A q u a t i c R e s o u r c e P e r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 23 2 2 0 4 5 8 $ 6 , 3 9 0 $ 5 0 $6,440 Li m i t 8 C e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r S a l m o n R e c o v e r y F u n d i n g B o a r d R e q u i r e m e n t 14 5 $ 6 8 5 $ 5 0 $735 St a t e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t / S h o r e l i n e E x e m p t i o n 22 0 2 2 4 $ 2 , 9 3 0 $ 5 0 $2,980 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 2 2 1 6 2 0 $ 2 , 6 6 0 $ 5 0 $2,710 17 Up p e r M a r s h a n d T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 10 4 0 4 0 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 9 , 6 4 9 $ 9 , 6 4 9 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 14 4 9 $1 , 1 0 5 $9,649 $10,754 18 Ma n a g e m e n t R e s e r v e 00 0 0 0 0 - $1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Su b t o t a l 23 20 74 13 7 57 35 34 6 $5 7 , 4 4 5 $5 1 9 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 $ 1 4 , 4 0 1 $ 3 1 , 8 0 3 $89,533 Un i t A m o u n t U n i t P r i c e T o t a l 13 Su b c o n s u l t a n t D e s i g n o f D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n A r e a LS 1 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 . 0 0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 14 Su b c o n s u t l a n t S u r v e y o f D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n A r e a LS 1 $ 4 , 7 5 2 . 0 0 $ 4 , 7 5 2 15 Da y t o n I s o l a t i o n G e o t e c h n i c a l F i e l d V i s i t MI 60 $0 . 5 8 $ 3 5 15 Da y t o n I s o l a t i o n G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t LS 1 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 15 Ha r b o r S q u a r e D e s i g n R e p o r t LS 1 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 16 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O H W F i e l d T r a v e l MI 60 $0 . 5 8 $ 3 5 16 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O H W / P e r m i t R e p o r t s LS 1 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 0 17 Su b c o n s u t l a n t S u r v e y o f U p p e r M a r s h T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n s LS 1 $ 9 , 6 4 9 . 0 0 $ 9 , 6 4 9 To t a l R e i m b u r s a b l e s $3 2 , 0 8 7 No t e s : EA = e a c h GI S = g e o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m OH W = o r d i n a r y h i g h w a t e r PI C = P r i n c i p a l - i n - C h a r g e Pr o f . = P r o f e s s i o n a l Re p r o - R e p r o d u c t i o n V. P . = V i c e P r e s i d e n t WP = W o r d P r o c e s s i n g Ex p l a n a t i o n o f R e i m b u r s a b l e E x p e n s e s Ta s k s La b o r TotalExpenses 21 - 1 - 1 2 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 - L 5 - T a b l e s 21-1-12393-401 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 0 of 39 4 TA B L E 2 AM E N D M E N T 1 - C O S T A D D I T I O N S , D E L E T I O N S , T R A N S F E R S S U M M A R Y SH A N N O N & W I L S O N , I N C . Bi l l i n g C a t e g o r y Ta s k s De s c r i p t i o n 1 Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t $1 0 , 8 7 2 $2 , 2 2 0 $13,092 2 Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s R e v i e w $5 , 9 0 2 $0 $5,902 3 Su r v e y a n d U t i l i t y L o c a t e s $3 3 , 5 6 0 -$ 3 , 9 1 4 $29,646 4 Be a c h O u t l e t E v a l u a t i o n $3 3 , 6 6 6 $0 $33,666 5 Hy d r o d y n a m i c M o d e l i n g S t u d y $5 9 , 5 1 2 $0 $59,512 6 Ge o t e c h n i c a l A s s e s s m e n t $5 4 , 5 0 3 -$ 7 , 2 4 4 $47,259 7 Co n t a m i n a t e d S o i l s A s s e s s m e n t $2 5 , 0 5 8 $0 $25,058 8 Wo r ki ng M e e t i ng s w i t h C h ev r o n , B N S F R a il wa y C o m p a n y , a n d o t h er s t a k e h o ld er s $1 6 , 2 6 4 -$ 3 , 3 0 0 $12,964 9 Fi n a l F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y R e p o r t $3 1 , 9 0 9 $0 $31,909 10 Wi l l o w C r e e k - A b a n d o n e d C u l v e r t D e s i g n $1 8 , 0 0 5 -$ 1 8 , 0 0 5 $0 11 Wi l l o w C r e e k - A b a n d o n e d C u l v e r t P e r m i t s $2 2 , 2 1 0 - $ 2 2 , 2 1 0 $ 0 12 Pu b l i c O u t r e a c h M e e t i n g $2 , 9 9 8 $ 3 , 3 0 0 $ 6 , 2 9 8 13 Ha r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t - D e s i g n $0 $ 8 , 5 9 5 $ 8 , 5 9 5 14 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y $0 $ 5 , 8 5 7 $ 5 , 8 5 7 15 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - D e s i g n $0 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 16 Pe r m i t s - D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n a n d H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t $0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 17 Up p e r M a r s h a n d T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y $0 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 18 Ma n a g e m e n t R e s e r v e $0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l $3 1 4 , 4 5 9 $ 3 8 , 1 6 0 $ 3 5 2 , 6 1 9 Am e n d m e n t T o t a l Ta s k s B a s e 21 - 1 - 1 2 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 - L 5 - T a b l e s 21-1-12393-401 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 1 of 39 4 TABLE 3 REVISED SCHEDULE SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Tasks Description Calendar Days Estimated Date NTP 0 3/15/14 2 Cultural Resources Review Borings and Explorations 30 4/14/14 2 Cultural Resources Review - Final 90 6/13/14 3 Survey 60 5/14/14 4 Beach Outlet Alternatives Analysis - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 4 Beach Outlet Alternatives Analysis - Final Report 340 2/18/15 5 Hydrodynamic Study - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 5 Hydrodynamic Study - Final Report 340 2/18/15 6 Geotechnical Assess - Draft Report 180 9/11/14 6 Geotechnical Assess - Final Report 210 10/11/14 7 Contaminated Soils Assess - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 7 Contaminated Soils Assess - Final Report 340 2/18/15 8 Working Meetings Chevron, BNSF, WSDOT Varies Varies 9 Final Feasibility Report - Draft 360 3/10/15 9 Final Feasibility Report - Final 480 7/8/15 10 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Draft N/A N/A 10 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Final N/A N/A 11 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Draft Permits N/A N/A 11 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Final Permits N/A N/A 12 Public Outreach Mtg TBD TBD 13 Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit - Draft 360 3/10/15 13 Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit - Final 390 4/9/15 15 Dayton Isolation - Draft 360 3/10/15 15 Dayton Isolation - Final 390 4/9/15 16 Permits 390 4/9/15 9 Final Feasibility Report - Final 480 7/8/15 Notes: BNSF = BNSF Railway Company WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation 21-1-12393-401-L5-Tables 21-1-12393-401 Packet Page 162 of 394 Packet Page 163 of 394 Page 1 of 2 1/2015 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Proposal 21-1-12393-401 Date: January 22, 2015 To: Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSAL More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you manage your risks. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. If you have never before dealt with geotechnical or environmental issues, you should recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by the consultant, who then applies judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions; their reaction to construction activity; appropriate design of foundations, slopes, impoundments, recovery wells; and other construction and/or remediation elements. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE. The nature of subsurface explorations—the types, quantities, and locations of procedures used—in large measure determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical/environmental report and the design based upon it. The more comprehensive a subsurface exploration and testing program, the more information it provides to the consultant, helping to reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions and the attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. Even the cost of subsurface construction may be lowered. Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic element of geotechnical/environmental design, which should be accomplished jointly by the consultant and the client (or designated professional representatives). This helps the parties involved recognize mutual concerns and makes the client aware of the technical options available. Clients who develop a subsurface exploration plan without the involvement and concurrence of a consultant may be required to assume responsibility and liability for the plan's adequacy. READ GENERAL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. Most consultants include standard general contract conditions in their proposals. One of the general conditions most commonly employed is to limit the consulting firm's liability. Known as a "risk allocation" or "limitation of liability," this approach helps prevent problems at the beginning and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them, should they arise. Various other elements of general conditions delineate your consultant's responsibilities. These are used to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, thereby helping all parties recognize who is responsible for different tasks. In all cases, read your consultant's general conditions carefully and ask any questions you may have. HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a consultant's report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your consultant to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical/environmental report. This allows a consultant to explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and to review their plans and specifications so that issues can be dealt with adequately. Although some other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical/environmental concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent consultant. EXHIBIT A Packet Page 164 of 394 Page 2 of 2 1/2015 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION MONITORING SERVICES. Most experienced clients also retain their consultant to serve during the construction phase of their projects. Involvement during the construction phase is particularly important because this permits the consultant to be on hand quickly to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to problems. The consultant can also monitor the geotechnical/environmental work performed by contractors. It is essential to recognize that the construction recommendations included in a report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork and/or drilling, design consultants need to observe those conditions in order to provide their recommendations. Only the consultant who prepares the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid. The consultant submitting the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of preliminary recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. REALIZE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. If you have requested only a geotechnical engineering proposal, it will not include services needed to evaluate the likelihood of contamination by hazardous materials or other pollutants. Given the liabilities involved, it is prudent practice to always have a site reviewed from an environmental viewpoint. A consultant cannot be responsible for failing to detect contaminants when the services needed to perform that function are not being provided. ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF YOUR CONSULTANT IS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. A geotechnical/environmental investigation will sometimes disclose the existence of conditions that may endanger the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public. Your consultant may be obligated under rules of professional conduct, or statutory or common law, to notify you and others of these conditions. RELY ON YOUR CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. Your consulting firm is familiar with several techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risk exposure for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Ask your consultant, not only about geotechnical and environmental issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland EXHIBIT A Packet Page 165 of 394 AM-7434 9. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:25 Minutes Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion of the Draft Land Use Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Discuss and provide any direction on the draft element. Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on January 20, 2015 Narrative Updating the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan will be the subject of a discussion at the January 27 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND ON 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015. Previously, the City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan was mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest need is to substitute current data for the old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short timeline, the Planning Board and City Council have concurred that the update can be basic in nature, focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting materials; (b) considering modest changes to reflect new information and expectations through the year 2035, as well as state guidance; and (c) adding performance measures and, as appropriate, action steps--generally one of each for each major Plan element. Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after reviewing each draft element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in mid-2015. Public hearings and other public information will be part of the process. PLAN'S "GENERAL BACKGROUND" SECTION The City's existing Comprehensive Plan has a "General Background section"--not required under the GMA, but still helpful in summarizing key background information about the City. This section was kept largely as is, except to be updated with new data and the provision of a goal and policies for public process. See Attachment 1 for the draft General Background section that shows tracked changes and Attachment 2 for a "clean" version of the same draft. Packet Page 166 of 394 LAND USE ELEMENT BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA) has broad goals about planning to accommodate urban growth and reduce sprawl, as well as to protect environmentally critical areas and meet other needs. Also, the GMA identifies certain things each land use element of a Comprehensive Plan must contain. More state guidance is provided in the Washington Administrative Code. Furthermore, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies provide direction for city and county approaches to land use. In addition, Puget Sound Regional Council (our regional planning organization) addresses land use and growth in VISION 2040 (our regional plan). Note: The GMA requires city and county comprehensive plans to be consistent with countywide and regional plans. DRAFT UPDATED LAND USE ELEMENT “Land use” comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. The city's existing Land Use Element covers a timeframe to 2025 and features data from the 2000 Census, with some comparisons to 1990. It also includes goals and policies. Based on 2010 Census data and other newer information, a new draft updated Land Use Element has been prepared. (See Exhibit 3 for the draft updated Land Use Element, showing tracked changes from the existing version. See Exhibit 4 for the same draft updated Land Use Element--but as a "clean" document, not showing the proposed changes.) The draft Land Use Element extends the timeframe out another ten years (to 2035), incorporates new data, and updates or simplifies some language in the goals and policies, without changing the general policy direction. For 2035, the City's population target is 45,550 persons (based on population allocations under the Snohomish County Tomorrow and countywide planning policies process). This would mean planning for growth at the average rate of just under 0.06% per year, close to the 0.05% average growth rate between 2000 and 2010. A performance measure has not been added to the current draft. That is because it has been challenging to identify a land use performance measure that is: (a) important to the Land Use Element: (b) meaningful in implementing the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) easy to obtain data for and report on each year. However, more thought will go into this and a draft measure could be added for consideration in a later stage of the public process. The Planning Board had three public meetings--November 12, December 10, and January 14--related to updating the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. At the January 14 meeting, the Planning Board recommended going forward to the City Council with the draft General Background section and the draft updated Land Use Element (attached). As part of its ongoing work, the Planning Board may consider recommending other edits. The City Council held a public hearing January 20. NEXT STEPS The next process step, per previous Council direction, is to hold a January 27 study session on the draft Land Use Element so that interested parties may formally comment. A slide presentation has been prepared. After the study session, steps will include: --Continuing preparation and refinement of draft 2015 updates to the Comprehensive Plan (including for other topics, such as economic development and transportation); --More opportunities for public information and input, for example, an open house on the entire 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process to be held February 25, 2015; --A Planning Board public hearing and a City Council public hearing on the full draft Comprehensive Packet Page 167 of 394 Plan update, proposed for June of 2015; --A recommendation by the Planning Board and a final decision by the City Council on adopting the full draft Comprehensive Plan update by mid-2015. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachments Attachment 1: Draft General Background, tracked changes Attachment 2: Draft General Background, clean version Attachment 3: Draft Land Use Element, tracked changes Attachment 4: Draft Land Use Element, clean version Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:29 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/23/2015 08:33 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:58 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/22/2015 07:26 AM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 168 of 394 8 General Background General Background Planning Area The City of Edmonds is located in south Snohomish County on the western shores of Puget Sound approximately 14 miles north of Seattle (Figure 1). Situated within the urbanized Puget Sound region, the city encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles (5,700 acres) in area, including 5 lineal linear miles (26,240 feet) of marine shoreline. Roughly triangular in shape, the city is bounded by Puget Sound on the west; Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace on the east; unincorporated Snohomish County on the north; and the town of Woodway, unincorporated Snohomish County (the Esperance area), and King County on the souththe City of Shoreline on the south. Land Use Pattern Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the majority of the city's land use base. Approximately 3,1003,272 acres, or 55 56.3 percent of the City's city's area is developed for single-family residential uses. Higher density residential development (including apartments and condominiums) is primarily located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and Stevens Swedish Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and multi-family residential units comprise approximately 3,400 453 acres (nearly 60 59.4 percent of the total land in the city). Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the Highway 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Stevens Swedish Hospital). There are several Smaller smaller commercial nodes of varying sizes that help to primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods, such as are located at the intersection of Edmonds Way (SR104) and 100th Avenue/9th Avenue (Westgate) and at 212th Street/84th Avenue (5 Corners)Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, Perrinville, and Puget Drive. The Port of Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and manages 33 upland acres as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats (approximately 11 acres). A variety of services and marine-related businesses are located on The the Port's propertiesy is occupied by approximately 80 businesses including office uses located in Harbor Square. Approximately 258 acres of parks and open space lands are owned or operated by the City, while there are another 229 acres of County-owned parks and open space land in the Edmonds area. Regional parks and beaches figure prominently in the Citycity, including Brackett’s Landing North and South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds Marsh is a significant City-owned open space (23 acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest community park owned by the City (48 acres). The largest County resources are Southwest County Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres). All together, parks, recreation, and open space lands account for 6.5 percent of City land. Packet Page 169 of 394 General Background 9 Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. Table Figure 1 and the accompanying Figure Table 1 summarize existing land uses in the city. Packet Page 170 of 394 10 General Background Single Family, 54.8% Multi Family, 4.8% Commercial, 4.6% Community Facilities, 5.0% Open Space, Recreation, 4.4% Public, Utility, 0.6% ROW, 19.2% Vacant, Unclassified, 6.6% Figure 1: Existing Land Use Packet Page 171 of 394 General Background 11 Table 1: Existing Land Use Table 1 Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres % of City Single Family 3,142 54.8% Multi Family 274 4.8% Commercial 261 4.6% Community Facilities 286 5.0% Open Space, Recreation 250 4.4% Public, Utility 36 0.6% ROW 1,102 19.2% Vacant, Unclassified 378 6.6% Source: Edmonds Planning Division. % of Total Acres Single-Family 56.3%3272.3 Streets/Parking/Driveways 18.8%1093.9 Parks/Recreation/Open Space 6.5%375.4 Vacant 4.0%230.3 Commercial 3.6%209.7 Multi-Family 3.1%181.0 Schools 3.0%171.5 Tidelands/Bays/Lagoons/Water Retention 1.4%80.1 Religious 0.7%41.6 Medical 0.7%40.8 Mixed Use 0.7%39.3 Industrial 0.6%32.2 Retirement/Special Needs 0.3%16.9 Government 0.2%14.0 Utilities 0.2%13.8 Total 100.0%5812.8 Source: City of Edmonds GIS, Nov-2014 Total Acres by Use Packet Page 172 of 394 12 General Background Table 2: City of Edmonds Historical and Projected Growth 1940 to 2025 Year Edmonds Population Percent Increase Avg Annual Increase Snohomish County Percent Increase Avg Annual Increase 1940 1,288 11%88,754 1950 2,057 60% 4.8% 111,580 26% 2.3% 1960 8,016 290% 14.6% 172,199 54% 4.4% 1970 23,684 195% 11.4% 265,236 54% 4.4% 1980 27,679 17% 1.6% 337,720 27% 2.4% 1990 30,744 11% 1.1% 465,642 38% 3.3% 2000 39,515 29% 2.5% 606,024 30% 2.7% 2025 44,880 14% 0.5% Historical Development The earliest documented inhabitants of the area were semi -sedentary likely nomadic bands of Native American tribess. As European exploration and settlement in the Pacific Northwest increased, settlers began homesteading and logging activities in the general area of the present-day city. The community that became the City of Edmonds grew out of a homestead and logging operation started by George Brackett in 1876. Logging and shingle-splitting were the dominant economic activities in the community during the 1880's and 1890's. The town continued to grow as other industries including box making, pulp mill, a cigar factory, and increased waterfront activities developed. The Great North Railroad reached the town in 1891 and for many years provided access for goods and passenger travel to Everett and Seattle as well as to the eastern part of the state. Although fires destroyed many of the waterfront mills, shingle production continued to be the primary industry in the city into the 1940s. Ferry service to Kingston began in 1923 when a ferry terminal was built near the location of the existing ferry dock. The present ferry terminal was built in the early 1950's after acquisition of the ferry system by the State of Washington. The city continued to grow during the 1940's and 50's, resulting in a more active role of the municipality in providing water, sewer and streets for the residential and commercial expansion. The Port District was formed in 1948 and began waterfront improvements. Commercial and retail businesses within the downtown provided a wide range of services to the community. Completion of Interstate 5 and increased growth in the Puget Sound region led to a gradual change in the character of city with more emphasis on residential development and a decline in the retail importance of the downtown. The Although the city is now primarily a residential community; , it also provides many amenities for residents and visitors, including restaurants, and specialized shopping as well as a long list of festivals and cultural events such as the annual art festival. The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 with the original town site encompassing approximately 550 acres. The original town site is now occupied primarily by the downtown and adjacent residential areas. The city has expanded in area through annexations to approximately 8.99.1 square miles. Population The rate of population growth has been relatively stable over the years with major increases occurring primarily as a result of annexations in during the 1950s, and 1960s, and 1990s. The population growth during these decades was 289.7%, 195.5%, and 28.5% respectively. Maps detailing the annexation timeline for Edmonds are shown below. The growth rate was marginal between 2000-2010 at 0.5%.. Packet Page 173 of 394 General Background 13 Population growth since 1980 has occurred at a relatively slow rate. Between 1980 and 1990, the population increased 11.1 percent (approximately 1 percent per year) to 30,744. Since 1990, this slow growth trend has continued, with the city reaching a population of 39,515 in 2000 (an annual increase of 2.5% per year during the 1990s). Even this relatively modest increase during the 1990s was largely due to annexations in the southern portion of the city’s urban growth area (Esperance). Figure 2: Edmonds Population Year Edmonds Population Percent Increase Avg. Annual Increase Snohomish County Percent Increase Avg. Annual Increase 1940 1,288 88,754 1950 2,057 59.7% 4.8% 111,580 25.7% 2.3% 1960 8,016 289.7% 14.6% 172,199 54.3% 4.4% 1970 23,684 195.5% 11.4% 265,236 54.0% 4.4% 1980 27,679 16.9% 1.6% 337,720 27.3% 2.4% 1990 30,744 11.1% 1.1% 465,642 37.9% 3.3% 2000 39,515 28.5% 2.5% 606,024 30.1% 2.7% 2010 39,709 0.5% 0.05% 713,335 17.7% 1.6% 2035 (proj.)45,550 14.7% 0.6% 955,280 33.9% 3.0% Souce: US Census Table 2: City of Edmonds Historical and Projected Growth, 1940 to 2035 Packet Page 174 of 394 14 General Background Source: US Census Figure 2: Edmonds Population 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Period Ending... To t a l P o p u l a t i o n 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% Av g A n n u a l I n c r e a s e City Population Avg Annual Increase Figure 3: Edmonds: City vs. Area Growth Edmonds Area (census tracts) City Population (incorporated) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Period Ending... Po p u l a t i o n Edmonds Area City Population Packet Page 175 of 394 General Background 15 Figures 2 and 3 on the previous page summarize tThe phe recent population trends in Edmonds and the surrounding areaare summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2 above. Figure 3 makes it clear that while the city’s population showed a relatively higher degree of growth in the 1990s due to annexations, population growth in the overall Edmonds area has remained at a low level. As of 20042014, Edmonds is the 2nd 3rd largest most populous city in Snohomish County, and the 22nd 27th largest most populous city in the state. The city ranks 8th 7th in overall population density state-wide, with a 2004 2014 estimated population density of 4,3824,418 people per square mile (Office of Financial Management, 2014). The city has a higher percentage of retired persons and senior citizens than its neighboring cities and Snohomish County as a whole (see Figure 3 on next page). The median age of the population in 2000 2010 was 42.046.3 years, up from 38.342.0 years in 1990 2000 and 33.538.3 years in 19801990. The In the 2010 Census, the population is was predominantly 83.4% Caucasian, with approximately 4 7.4% percent Asian or/ Pacific Islander, and 3 percent combined2.6% African American, 0.7% Native American, Eskimo, Aleut, and other/Alaskan Native, and 4.1% mixed race. Packet Page 176 of 394 16 General Background Figure 3: Age Distribution of Edmonds Residents Source: US Census,2010Figure 4 Packet Page 177 of 394 General Background 17 Economic Factors During the first decade of the 21st century, covered employment in Edmonds grew at a modest average annual growth rate (AGR) of 0.56% (compared to Snohomish County at 1.53% AGR and King County -0.32% AGR). These figures are based on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Covered Employment estimates and consist of all employment covered by the Washington Unemployment Insurance Act except jobs in the resource, mining, and construction fields which were excluded to remain consistent with Snohomish County Tomorrow’s (SCT) long-term employment targets that do not consider resource, mining, and construction fields into their projections. From 2010 to 2013, Edmonds experienced significant growth in employment as the economy recovered from the global recession. During this period, overall employment grew at 2.46% AGR with the most notable rise in service fields (professional services, waste management, private sector educational services, healthcare and social services, arts and entertainment, accommodation and food services) at 18.5% AGR. Figure 4 shows how the employment mix in Edmonds changed over time. Figure 5 shows the percent change of specific industries from 2010 to 2013. In 2013, the Edmonds’ total Covered Employment was 12,638. The SCT’s 2035 employment projection for Edmonds is 13,948, representing an AGR of 0.47%. Figure 4: Covered Employment Estimate for Edmonds 2000, 2006, and 2013 Over the last decade, employment within the city has grown somewhat faster than population. Between 1980 and 1990, employment increased approximately 2.7 percent per year. In 1990, the city had an estimated 9,263 jobs with the largest portion of those (38 percent) in finance, insurance, real estate and services. Retail trade and government accounted for 27 percent and 23 percent respectively. The remaining 12 percent of the jobs were in manufacturing (5 percent); wholesale trade, transportation, communication and utilities (4 percent); and education (3 percent). By the 2000 census, employment growth had slowed to just under one percent per year, reaching a total employment of 10,154. As in 1990, the largest sector of employment (39.5 percent) was in finance, insurance, real estate and services. Retail trade and government accounted for 26 percent and 14 percent respectively. The remaining 20.5 percent of the jobs were in construction (7.6 percent), manufacturing (1.6 percent); wholesale trade, transportation, communication and utilities (5.5 percent); and education (5.8 percent). Table 3 Edmonds Employment by Sector – 2000 Census Const/Res FIRES Manufacturing Retail WTCU Government Education Total 774 4,010 162 2,667 561 1,396 584 10,154 Packet Page 178 of 394 18 General Background Source: U.S. Census, 2000Puget Sound Regional Council. Figure 5: Percent Change in Covered Employment Estimates, Post-Recession 2010 to 2013 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council. Note: WTU refers to Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. FIRE refers to Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Edmonds in 1999 was $53,522, which is equivalent to the median income for King and Snohomish Counties ($53,157 and $53,060, respectively). Median income in 1990 was $40,515. Retail trade is a significant employer in the city. However, on a per capita basis, taxable retail sales in the City of Edmonds are relatively lower than Edmonds’ neighbors and other cities of similar size, as shown in Figure 65, and roughly the same as Snohomish County as a whole. The City’s location amidst densely populated areas suggests that Edmonds has the potential to attract higher retail sales comparable to other cities its size. Packet Page 179 of 394 General Background 19 Figure 6: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita (all NAICS) in 2010 Source: Department of Revenue Housing The city is primarily residential with single-family residences as the predominant land use. Of the 17,51918,378 dwelling units in 20002010, 11,39111,685 were single-family (65.5 percent63.6% of Packet Page 180 of 394 20 General Background the total) and 6,0386,664 were multi-family (34.5 percent36.3% of the total). As shown in Table 34, multi family is continuing to increase its share of total housing stock. In 19902000, 65.3 percent68% of all housing units were owner-occupied; this increased to just over 69%8 percent by 20002010. Average household size continues to decrease over time, from 2.59 persons per household in 1980 to 2.322.26 persons in 20002010.. Table 3: Selected Housing Statistics Table 4 Selected Housing Statistics 1980 1990 2000 SF Housing Units 7,529 8,550 11,391 MF Housing Units 3,072 4,165 6,038 Mobile Homes 101 230 90 Total Housing Units 10,702 12,945 17,519 % Single Family 71.3% 67.8% 65.5% % Multi Family 28.7% 32.2% 34.5% Avg Household Size 2.59 2.41 2.32 Avg Persons/Unit 2.59 2.37 2.26 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Transportation The existing transportation system consists of a network of principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local streets. Three major arterials link together state routes or connect the state route system to major centers and to the ferry system; - SR-104, SR-524/196th Street SW and SR-99. SR- 104 serves east-west travel on the south end of the city and provides access to the Edmonds-Kingston ferry and Interstate 5; SR; SR-524/196th Street SW extends bordering through the east side of the city. SR-99 carries the highest volume of traffic in Edmonds. 1980 1990 2000 2010 SF Housing Units 7,529 8,550 11,391 11,685 MF Housing Units 3,072 4,165 6,038 6,664 Mobile Homes 101 230 90 29 Total Housing Units 10,702 12,945 17,519 18,378 % Single Family 71.3% 67.8% 65.5%63.6% % Multi Family 28.7% 32.2% 34.5%36.3% Avg Household Size 2.59 2.41 2.32 2.26 Avg Persons/Unit 2.59 2.37 2.26 2.16 Selected Housing Statistics Packet Page 181 of 394 General Background 21 The Burlington Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the city's shoreline and links Edmonds with Everett to the north and Seattle to the south. The rail line is currently used for freight and AMTRAK and Sound Transit commuter rail passenger rail service; approximately; approximately 37 trains a day pass through the city. Bus service is provided by Community Transit with 3 regular bus routes (with service to Mill Creek, Lynnwood, and Alderwood) and 4 peak period only commute bus routes (with service to the University of Washington and downtown Seattle). In 2009, the Swift bus rapid transit was launched, servicing a 17-mile stretch from Shoreline to Everett. The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry connects south Snohomish County and north King County with the northern Kitsap Peninsula and points west on the Olympic Peninsula via the Hood Canal Bridge. The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route is the fastest-growingremains on of the busiest routes in the state’s ferry system. Figure 76 shows historical growth in passenger and vehicle demand from 1980 to 2000. Ridership more than doubled during the 1980s, increasing from nearly 1,950 vehicles and more than 4,250 persons daily in 1980 to over 4,500 vehicles and 9,200 persons daily in 1990. Ridership also increased appreciably in the 1990s, growing by more than 40 percent% to over 6,750 vehicles and 13,000 persons daily during 2000. The 1992 Cross Sound Transportation Study (Booz-Allen and Hamilton Study Team, 1992) concluded that there was no reasonable alternative to the ferry service to meet the projected increases in travel demand. The PSRC based its Transportation Element of Vision 2020 on the Edmonds- Kingston ferry service growing to support the allocation of population within the region. PSRC Destination 2030 identifies the Edmonds Crossing project as a ferry project on the Metropolitan Transportation System and thus a crucial element to the mobility needs and economic vitality of the region. Figure 7: Historical Edmonds Daily Ferry Ridership Packet Page 182 of 394 22 General Background Figure 6 Historical Edmonds Daily Ferry Ridership Source: Source: Washington State Ferries, Ferry Traffic Statistics Rider Segment ReportEdmonds Crossing Final EIS, November, 2004. In response to this need, the Edmonds Crossing project is being developedhas been proposed to provide a long-term solution to current operations and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in downtown Edmonds. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration [FTA]), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and the City of Edmonds, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], the U.S. Coast Guard, the Suquamish Tribe, the Tulalip Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the Swinomish Tribe, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street in downtown Edmonds to another site farther from the downtown core at Point Edwards. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that would integrate the ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. Access would be provided by a realigned State Route (SR) 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet intercity (Amtrak) passenger service and commuter rail loading requirements; a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements; facilities for accommodating both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers of the available transportation modes (parking, drop-off areas, retail and concessionaire space, and waiting areas); and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users Packet Page 183 of 394 General Background 23 Attributes of the CommunityNeighborhoods The City of Edmonds was a well-established community by the turn of the twentieth century and the present urban form preserves many characteristics of its historic origins. The community’s location on the west facing slopes of Puget Sound provides many amenities including extensive views of the water and Olympic Mountains, access to beaches and waterfront parks, and a compact downtown area. The city provides a wide variety of parks and recreational facilities. An active arts and cultural community contributes to the strong sense of civic pride widely shared in the community. There are numerous well-kept residential neighborhoods, a viable economic base, and an active, involved citizenry.Edmonds has a variety of neighborhoods, big and small, named and unnamed. Some neighborhoods, such as in the Highway 99 area, in the “Bowl,” Firdale, and Perrinville, include commercial activities. (Note: The Bowl refers to the downtown area and vicinity; it comprises about 17% of the City’s population.) Many neighborhood areas include parks, trails, and other amenities that help identify them or add to their unique character. Each neighborhood is valuable and contributes to the community as a whole. Recognizing this character and value, while still allowing for positive changes in neighborhoods over time, is an important concept. Public Process Public Participation Goal A. It is the goal of the City of Edmonds to provide early and continuous public notice for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments in advance of all opportunities to comment on the proposals, and to allow those who express an interest in any of the amendments to be able to track their progress through the legislative decision process. A.1. Use a variety of methods to provide early and ongoing public notice of the proposed amendments, including such things as publication in news outlets, advertising on local public access television, placing notices in a City newsletter, compiling a list of interested parties, and/or providing information on the City’s website. A.2. Information provided by the City of Edmonds as part of this public participation process will be designed to: A.1.a. Use plain understandable language. A.1.b.2. Provide broad dissemination of information regarding the proposals. A.1.c.3. Provide early and continuous notification. A.1.d.4. Provide opportunities for commenting in a variety of ways – verbally, in writing, and via email. A.3. In addition to providing early and continuous information on the plan amendment proposals, the City of Edmonds will provide a formal adoption process with public hearing(s) and opportunities for public comment and input. Packet Page 184 of 394 24 General Background The public process for the 2004 comprehensive plan update included numerous public workshops, open houses, and televised work sessions both at the Planning Board and City Council. Three public hearings were held at the Planning Board and two public hearings were held at the City Council. Interested parties were provided the option to be informed of upcoming events and hearings via U.S. mail or email, and could track the process online at a special section of the City’s website. An initial public open house was held on May 26, 2004 to inform the public about the process and issues related to updates of the comprehensive plan and critical areas regulations. Initial work sessions were conducted with the City Planning Board and City Council on June 22 and 23, 2004, respectively, to familiarize each entity with the update process and the primary issues involved. All Planning Board and City Council meetings were publicized and open to the public, with City Council sessions recorded and broadcast on the local public access television channel. Throughout the process, the City continually updated its website regarding Comprehensive Plan and critical areas revisions, including posting of background materials and draft and final documents. In addition, over 600 letters of notification were sent to property owners who had streams on or adjacent to their property, these being the residents most likely to be impacted by new critical areas regulations. Over 800 letters were sent to property owners in areas of existing “large lot” zoning where it had been determined that the plan and zoning designations could be changed to higher density urban designations. These mailings were in addition to the newspaper ads, news releases, and other forms of public notice employed during the process. Packet Page 185 of 394 8 General Background General Background Planning Area The City of Edmonds is located in south Snohomish County on the western shores of Puget Sound approximately 14 miles north of Seattle. Situated within the urbanized Puget Sound region, the city encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles (5,700 acres) in area, including 5 linear miles (26,240 feet) of marine shoreline. Roughly triangular in shape, the city is bounded by Puget Sound on the west; Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace on the east; unincorporated Snohomish County on the north; and the town of Woodway and the City of Shoreline on the south. Land Use Pattern Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the majority of the city's land use base. Approximately 3,272 acres, or 56.3 percent of the city's area is developed for single-family residential uses. Higher density residential development (including apartments and condominiums) is primarily located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and Swedish Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and multi-family residential units comprise approximately 3,453 acres (nearly 59.4 percent of the total land in the city). Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the Highway 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Swedish Hospital). There are several smaller commercial nodes of varying sizes that help to serve adjacent neighborhoods, such as Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, Perrinville, and Puget Drive. The Port of Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and manages 33 upland acres as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats (approximately 11 acres). A variety of services and marine-related businesses are located on the Port's properties. Regional parks and beaches figure prominently in the city, including Brackett’s Landing North and South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds Marsh is a significant City-owned open space (23 acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest community park owned by the City (48 acres). The largest County resources are Southwest County Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres). All together, parks, recreation, and open space lands account for 6.5 percent of City land. Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. Figure 1 and the accompanying Table 1 summarize existing land uses in the city. Packet Page 186 of 394 General Background 9 Table 1: Existing Land Use % of Total Acres Single-Family 56.3%3272.3 Streets/Parking/Driveways 18.8%1093.9 Parks/Recreation/Open Space 6.5%375.4 Vacant 4.0%230.3 Commercial 3.6%209.7 Multi-Family 3.1%181.0 Schools 3.0%171.5 Tidelands/Bays/Lagoons/Water Retention 1.4%80.1 Religious 0.7%41.6 Medical 0.7%40.8 Mixed Use 0.7%39.3 Industrial 0.6%32.2 Retirement/Special Needs 0.3%16.9 Government 0.2%14.0 Utilities 0.2%13.8 Total 100.0%5812.8 Source: City of Edmonds GIS, Nov-2014 Total Acres by Use Packet Page 187 of 394 10 General Background Historical Development The earliest documented inhabitants of the area were Native American tribes. As European exploration and settlement in the Pacific Northwest increased, settlers began homesteading and logging activities in the general area of the present-day city. The community that became the City of Edmonds grew out of a homestead and logging operation started by George Brackett in 1876. Logging and shingle-splitting were the dominant economic activities in the community during the 1880's and 1890's. The town continued to grow as other industries including box making, pulp mill, a cigar factory, and increased waterfront activities developed. The Great North Railroad reached the town in 1891 and for many years provided access for goods and passenger travel to Everett and Seattle as well as to the eastern part of the state. Although fires destroyed many of the waterfront mills, shingle production continued to be the primary industry in the city into the 1940s. Ferry service to Kingston began in 1923 when a ferry terminal was built near the location of the existing ferry dock. The present ferry terminal was built in the early 1950's after acquisition of the ferry system by the State of Washington. The city continued to grow during the 1940's and 50's, resulting in a more active role of the municipality in providing water, sewer and streets for the residential and commercial expansion. The Port District was formed in 1948 and began waterfront improvements. Commercial and retail businesses within the downtown provided a wide range of services to the community. Completion of Interstate 5 and increased growth in the Puget Sound region led to a gradual change in the character of city with more emphasis on residential development and a decline in the retail importance of the downtown. Although the city is now primarily a residential community, it also provides many amenities for residents and visitors, including restaurants and specialized shopping as well as a long list of festivals and cultural events. The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 with the original town site encompassing approximately 550 acres. The original town site is now occupied primarily by the downtown and adjacent residential areas. The city has expanded in area through annexations to approximately 9.1 square miles. Population The rate of population growth has been relatively stable over the years with major increases occurring primarily as a result of annexations during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1990s. The population growth during these decades was 289.7%, 195.5%, and 28.5% respectively. Maps detailing the annexation timeline for Edmonds are shown below. The growth rate was marginal between 2000-2010 at 0.5%. Packet Page 188 of 394 General Background 11 Figure 2: Edmonds Population Source: US Census The population trends in Edmonds are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2 above. As of 2014, Edmonds is the 3rd most populous city in Snohomish County, and the 27th most populous city in the state. The city ranks 7th in overall population density state-wide, with a 2014 estimated population density of 4,418 people per square mile (Office of Financial Management, 2014). The city has a higher percentage of retired persons and senior citizens than its neighboring cities and Snohomish County as a whole (see Figure 3 on next page). The median age of the population in 2010 was 46.3 years, up from 42.0 years in 2000 and 38.3 years in 1990. In the 2010 Census, the population was 83.4% Caucasian, approximately 7.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.6% African American, 0.7% Native American/Alaskan Native, and 4.1% mixed race. Year Edmonds Population Percent Increase Avg. Annual Increase Snohomish County Percent Increase Avg. Annual Increase 1940 1,288 88,754 1950 2,057 59.7% 4.8% 111,580 25.7% 2.3% 1960 8,016 289.7% 14.6% 172,199 54.3% 4.4% 1970 23,684 195.5% 11.4% 265,236 54.0% 4.4% 1980 27,679 16.9% 1.6% 337,720 27.3% 2.4% 1990 30,744 11.1% 1.1% 465,642 37.9% 3.3% 2000 39,515 28.5% 2.5% 606,024 30.1% 2.7% 2010 39,709 0.5% 0.05% 713,335 17.7% 1.6% 2035 (proj.)45,550 14.7% 0.6% 955,280 33.9% 3.0% Souce: US Census Table 2: City of Edmonds Historical and Projected Growth, 1940 to 2035 Packet Page 189 of 394 12 General Background Figure 3: Age Distribution of Edmonds Residents Source: US Census,2010 Economic Factors During the first decade of the 21st century, covered employment in Edmonds grew at a modest average annual growth rate (AGR) of 0.56% (compared to Snohomish County at 1.53% AGR and King County -0.32% AGR). These figures are based on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Covered Employment estimates and consist of all employment covered by the Washington Unemployment Insurance Act except jobs in the resource, mining, and construction fields which were excluded to remain consistent with Snohomish County Tomorrow’s (SCT) long-term employment targets that do not consider resource, mining, and construction fields into their projections. From 2010 to 2013, Edmonds experienced significant growth in employment as the economy recovered from the recession. During this period, overall employment grew at 2.46% AGR with the most notable rise in service fields (professional services, waste management, private sector educational services, healthcare and social services, arts and entertainment, accommodation and food services) at 18.5% AGR. Figure 4 shows how the employment mix in Edmonds changed over time. Figure 5 shows the percent change of specific industries from 2010 to 2013. In 2013, the Edmonds’ total Covered Employment was 12,638. The SCT’s 2035 employment projection for Edmonds is 13,948, representing an AGR of 0.47%. Packet Page 190 of 394 General Background 13 Figure 4: Covered Employment Estimate for Edmonds 2000, 2006, and 2013 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council. Figure 5: Percent Change in Covered Employment Estimates, Post-Recession 2010 to 2013 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council. Note: WTU refers to Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. FIRE refers to Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Edmonds in 1999 was $53,522, which is equivalent to the median income for King and Snohomish Counties ($53,157 and $53,060, respectively). Median income in 1990 was $40,515. Packet Page 191 of 394 14 General Background Retail trade is a significant employer in the city. However, on a per capita basis, taxable retail sales in the City of Edmonds are relatively lower than Edmonds’ neighbors and other cities of similar size, as shown in Figure 6, and roughly the same as Snohomish County as a whole. The City’s location amidst densely populated areas suggests that Edmonds has the potential to attract higher retail sales comparable to other cities its size. Figure 6: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita (all NAICS) in 2010 Source: Department of Revenue Housing The city is primarily residential with single-family residences as the predominant land use. Of the 18,378 dwelling units in 2010, 11,685 were single-family (63.6% of the total) and 6,664 were multi- family (36.3% of the total). As shown in Table 3, multi family is continuing to increase its share of total housing stock. In 2000, 68% of all housing units were owner-occupied; this increased to just over 69% by 2010. Average household size continues to decrease over time, from 2.59 persons per household in 1980 to 2.26 persons in 2010. Packet Page 192 of 394 General Background 15 Table 3: Selected Housing Statistics Source: U.S. Census Transportation The existing transportation system consists of a network of principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local streets. Three major arterials link together state routes or connect the state route system to major centers and to the ferry system; - SR-104, SR-524/196th Street SW and SR-99. SR- 104 serves east-west travel on the south end of the city and provides access to the Edmonds-Kingston ferry and Interstate 5; SR-524/196th Street SW extends bordering through the east side of the city. SR-99 carries the highest volume of traffic in Edmonds. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the city's shoreline and links Edmonds with Everett to the north and Seattle to the south. The rail line is currently used for freight and AMTRAK and Sound Transit commuter rail passenger rail service; approximately 37 trains a day pass through the city. Bus service is provided by Community Transit with 3 regular bus routes (with service to Mill Creek, Lynnwood, and Alderwood) and 4 peak period only commute bus routes (with service to the University of Washington and downtown Seattle). In 2009, the Swift bus rapid transit was launched, servicing a 17-mile stretch from Shoreline to Everett. The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry connects south Snohomish County and north King County with the northern Kitsap Peninsula and points west on the Olympic Peninsula via the Hood Canal Bridge. The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route remains on of the busiest routes in the state’s ferry system. Figure 7 shows historical growth in passenger and vehicle demand from 1980 to 2000. Ridership more than doubled during the 1980s, increasing from nearly 1,950 vehicles and more than 4,250 persons daily in 1980 to over 4,500 vehicles and 9,200 persons daily in 1990. Ridership also increased appreciably in the 1990s, growing by more than 40% to over 6,750 vehicles and 13,000 persons daily during 2000. The 1992 Cross Sound Transportation Study (Booz-Allen and Hamilton Study Team, 1992) concluded that there was no reasonable alternative to the ferry service to meet the projected increases in travel demand. The PSRC based its Transportation Element of Vision 2020 on the Edmonds- Kingston ferry service growing to support the allocation of population within the region. PSRC Destination 2030 identifies the Edmonds Crossing project as a ferry project on the Metropolitan Transportation System and thus a crucial element to the mobility needs and economic vitality of the region. 1980 1990 2000 2010 SF Housing Units 7,529 8,550 11,391 11,685 MF Housing Units 3,072 4,165 6,038 6,664 Mobile Homes 101 230 90 29 Total Housing Units 10,702 12,945 17,519 18,378 % Single Family 71.3% 67.8% 65.5%63.6% % Multi Family 28.7% 32.2% 34.5%36.3% Avg Household Size 2.59 2.41 2.32 2.26 Avg Persons/Unit 2.59 2.37 2.26 2.16 Selected Housing Statistics Packet Page 193 of 394 16 General Background Figure 7: Historical Edmonds Daily Ferry Ridership Source: Washington State Ferries, Ferry Traffic Statistics Rider Segment Report In response to this need, the Edmonds Crossing project has been proposed to provide a long-term solution to current operations and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in downtown Edmonds. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration [FTA]), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and the City of Edmonds, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], the U.S. Coast Guard, the Suquamish Tribe, the Tulalip Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the Swinomish Tribe, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street in downtown Edmonds to another site farther from the downtown core at Point Edwards. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that would integrate the ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. Access would be provided by a realigned State Route (SR) 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet intercity (Amtrak) passenger service and commuter rail loading requirements; a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements; facilities for accommodating both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers of the available transportation modes (parking, drop-off areas, retail and concessionaire space, and waiting areas); and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users Neighborhoods Edmonds has a variety of neighborhoods, big and small, named and unnamed. Some neighborhoods, such as in the Highway 99 area, in the “Bowl,” Firdale, and Perrinville, include commercial activities. (Note: The Bowl refers to the downtown area and vicinity; it comprises about 17% of the City’s Packet Page 194 of 394 General Background 17 population.) Many neighborhood areas include parks, trails, and other amenities that help identify them or add to their unique character. Each neighborhood is valuable and contributes to the community as a whole. Recognizing this character and value, while still allowing for positive changes in neighborhoods over time, is an important concept. Public Process Public Participation Goal A. It is the goal of the City of Edmonds to provide early and continuous public notice for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments in advance of all opportunities to comment on the proposals, and to allow those who express an interest in any of the amendments to be able to track their progress through the legislative decision process. A.1. Use a variety of methods to provide early and ongoing public notice of the proposed amendments, including such things as publication in news outlets, advertising on local public access television, placing notices in a City newsletter, compiling a list of interested parties, and/or providing information on the City’s website. A.2. Information provided by the City of Edmonds as part of this public participation process will be designed to: A.1.a. Use plain understandable language. A.1.b. Provide broad dissemination of information regarding the proposals. A.1.c. Provide early and continuous notification. A.1.d. Provide opportunities for commenting in a variety of ways – verbally, in writing, and via email. A.3. In addition to providing early and continuous information on the plan amendment proposals, the City of Edmonds will provide a formal adoption process with public hearing(s) and opportunities for public comment and input. Packet Page 195 of 394 46 Land Use Land Capacity Background The Growth Mangement Act (GMA) provides the framework for planning at all levels in Washington State. Under the mandate of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.215), local governements are required to evaluate the density and capacity for Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Edmonds has been allocated population, housing, and employment growth targets through County Planning Policies. Population projections are based on the official 20-year population projections for Snohomish County from the Office of Financial Management and distributed as represented in Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Edmonds is considered a Larger City for regional growth strategy purposes. The Larger City designation is applied to cities that have a combined population and employment total over 22,500. Currently, eighteen cities are grouped in the Larger City designation. As a group, these cities are expected to accommodate 14% of the region’s projected population growth and 12% of the regional projected employment growth. The 2035 population target for Edmonds is 45,550 persons, up 14.4% from the 2011 population estimate of 39,800. To accommodate the targeted growth, Edmonds will require approximately 2,772 new housing units and 2,269 new jobs by 2035. The City was required to estimate the ability of land within the City of Edmonds to accommodate targeted population and employment growth under each of the land use alternatives considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995. Table 5 City of Edmonds Land Supply – 1994 (Gross Acres) Land Use Total Acres Developed Acres Vacant Acres Residential Single-Family 2,773.7 2,608.8 164.9 Multi-Family 202.0 193.5 8.5 Business Commercial 296.9 284.7 12.2 Industrial 58.4 11.6 46.8 Public Facilities Government 35.3 35.3 — Schools 131.8 131.8 — Packet Page 196 of 394 Land Use 47 Parks & Open Space 349.2 349.2 — Religious 29.0 29.0 — Streets 867.0 867.0 — Total 4,743.3 4,510.9 232.4 Source: City of Edmonds Planning Department, 1994 Table 45 summarizes available GIS data on land supply in Edmonds as it existed in 19942014. Developed acres include the entire parcel boundaries that contained development, not just the building footprint. The Edmonds Marsh accounted for all vacant acres listed under Parks & Open Space. Data on residential and commercial development in 1994 are shown in Table 6. Overall, approximately nearly 95 4%percent of the City’s landcity was vacantdeveloped in 19942014. Approximately 75 79.3%percent of the remaining undevelopedvacant lands (approximately 173 226.4 acres) was were designated for residential uses: 71 percent69.2% for single-family residences and 4 percent10.1% for multi-family residences. Of the remaining vacant lands, 25 percent10.4% of Table 4 City of Edmonds Land Supply (Gross Acres), 2014 Acres % of Total Acres Acres % of Total Acres Residential Single-Family 3428.9 3272.3 56.9% 156.6 2.7% Multi-Family 203.9 181.0 3.1% 22.9 0.4% Retirement/Special Needs 16.9 16.9 0.3% Business Commercial 209.7 209.7 3.6% Industrial 32.2 32.2 0.6% Medical 40.8 40.8 0.7% Mixed Use 62.8 39.3 0.7% 23.5 0.4% Public Facilities Government 14.0 14.0 0.2% Schools 171.5 171.5 3.0% Parks & Open Space 416.7 393.3 6.8% 23.4 0.4% Religious 41.6 41.6 0.7% Streets/Parking/Driveways 1093.9 1093.9 19.0% Utilities 13.8 13.8 0.2% Total 5746.7 5520.3 96.1% 226.4 3.9% Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, Nov-2014 Developed Lands Vacant Lands Land Use Total Acres Packet Page 197 of 394 48 Land Use undeveloped land waswas designated for commercial and industrial usesmixed use and 10.3% represented the Edmonds Marsh. For a more in-depth study, the 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) developed Capacity build-out capacity estimates were developed for vacant and under-developed parcels. Using a process developed by Snohomish County Tomorrow, the BLR was prepared in 2012 and adopted by the Snohomish County Council in June 2013. This report provided the city with the necessary information to complete a development capacity analysis.In general, vacant land included parcels that currently have no structures; residential parcels were considered under-developed if they contained less than 50 percent of the allowable density under existing zoning (for example, a single-family house on a five-acre parcel that is zoned for four units per acre). The analysis measured the build-out capacity of vacant and under-developed parcels. As indicated in Table 6, when the city’s first GMA-mandated comprehensive plan was adopted in 1995, development of currently vacant parcels was expected to provide capacity for approximately 762 additional residential units and an additional 1.35 million square feet of commercial space. Table 6 Development and Capacity of Vacant Land – 1994 Existing Development Vacant/Development Capacity Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Downtown 1,571 943,206 17 506,996 HS Activity Center 1,914 1,158,633 232 656,407 Highway 99 South 337 558,912 48 187,930 76th and 196th 545 39 RS-6 1,615 65 RS-8 3,659 73 RS-12 2,719 224 RSW -12 51 — RS-20 362 64 Total 12,773 2,660,751 762 1,351,333 Source: City of Edmonds Planning Department, 1994. Packet Page 198 of 394 Land Use 49 Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, capacity estimates were not calculated strictly on the amount of vacant buildable land, but also on increased densities and intensity of redevelopment within various areas of the city. Two Different methods of development were targeted to provide additional residential capacity.: For example, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were one method of attempting to supplement capacity in single family neighborhoods, while encouraging and mixed use development in commercial areas provided for additional capacity in areas already experiencing a higher level of activity. Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) were also targeted as a way of assuring maximum buildout of single-family-zoned areas while maintaining the character of the city.[A1] Following adoption of the 1995 comprehensive plan, the city embarked on an implementation program to achieve the goals identified in the plan. Many of these implementation measures are described in the Housing Element under the discussion of “reasonable measuresstrategies to promote affordable housing.” These measures were taken by the city to address issues related to both capacity and affordable housing. A key feature of Edmonds’ ccomprehensive plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the second floor and offices, shops or other commercial uses on the ground floor, or it could consist of a mixture of uses arranged in proximity to each other. Edmonds is unique in relying to a significant degree on mixed use development as a land use pattern designed to address potential capacity. Mixed use development is allowed in both of the city’s Activity Centers, and in the Corridor development areas. In the 1995 comprehensive plan, mixed use development was to be allowed under all the alternatives considered, but would only be encouraged under the adopted “Designed Infill” alternative. The encouragement of mixed use development continues as a basic assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan. This basic approach is embodied in much of the development that has occurred in recent years. The importance of mixed use in the city’s land use pattern can be seen in Figure 97. Table 5: Summary of Buildable Lands Report SF MF Sr. Apts Total SF MF Sr. Apts Total SF MF Sr. Apts Total Buildable Lands Report 561 2,381 482 3,424 444 1,868 334 2,646 1,236 3,437 393 5,065 2,820 Source: Buildable Lands Report, 2012 Additional Housing Unit Capacity (before reductions) Additional Housing Unit Capacity (after reductions) Additional Population Capacity (after reductions) Additional Employment Capacity (after reductions) Packet Page 199 of 394 50 Land Use Source: City of Edmonds GIS, Nov-14 Packet Page 200 of 394 Land Use 51 Current Population and Employment Capacity An updated county-wide capacity analysis was completed as part of the Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County, completed in November 2002. This analysis showed a population capacity for Edmonds of 45,337 and an employment capacity of 12,041. These capacity figures indicate that with an estimated 2004 population of 39,460, Edmonds can accommodate an additional 5,877 people and 1,887 jobs. The 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) showed an Edmonds housing capacity of an additional 2,646 units through the year 2035, which would accommodate a total population of 45,550 residents. Since the BLR was finalized in 2012, some of the assumptions regarding buildable lands have changed. During the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, city staff considered how these changes affected capacity projections. For example, recent plans by the City to encourage mixed-use development in the Neighborhood Business areas of Westgate and Five Corners, plus the removal of restrictions on first and second floor residential development in CG and CG2 zones along the Highway 99 corridor, should provide the city with buildable lands capacity not considered in the 2012 BLR. In total, the City conservatively estimates these actions can increase the buildable lands capacity by approximately 850 net housing units applying the same methodology used in the Buildable Lands Report. With these adjustments, the City estimates a total capacity of 2,810 additional housing units by the year 2035. The projected need to accommodate the targeted population growth was 2,772 housing Figure 8 General Use Categories by % of City Land Area Neighborhood Commercial 0.4% Planned-Neighborhood 0.2% Downtown Districts 1.2% Community Commercial 0.4% Edmonds Way Corridor 0.6% Corridor Development 3.6% Mixed Use Commercial 2.4% Single Family Urban 40.5% Master Plan Development 1.2% Multi Family 3.3% Open Space 5.0%Public 1.0% ROW 19.2% Other 8.8% Single Family Resource 21.1% Packet Page 201 of 394 52 Land Use units as determined by the Countywide Planning Policies. The land capacity analysis, combined with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan, indicate that the 2035 targets for population and employment can be accommodated by the City. However, the jobs capacity does not take into account any new implementation actions proposed in the Highway 99 area. Discussions of land capacity methodology generally acknowledge that an oversupply of land is needed in growth management systems using urban/rural growth boundaries (DCD, 1992). Reasons are generally related to operation of urban land markets, changes in availability over time, and a need to avoid constraining land supply and causing increases in land cost. The amount of the oversupply needed is not known with certainty. Too little urban land relative to targeted needs could increase land cost and housing prices and shift growth pressure to adjacent areas or jurisdictions. In order to ensure adequate availability of urban land at all times, some growth management planning systems have provided for a “safety factor” of land in addition to projected urban area land requirements. Factors of 1.25 to 2.5 have been used in some growth management systems (Whatcom County/Bellingham Planning Departments, 1993; Beaton, 1982; Department of Community Development (DCD), 1992). For the 2002 capacity analysis, reduction factors were applied to provide a “safety factor” for estimated future capacity. A 15% market availability reduction factor was applied to vacant land, and at a 30% market availability reduction factor was used for partially-used and redevelopable land. In addition, an additional 5% reduction was made for uncertainty related to future infrastructure needs (roads, drainage facilities, etc.). One adjustment to the capacity analysis completed in 2002 is necessary. Development plans for the large master-planned multi family development (developed by Triad) at Point Edwards indicate that nearly 300 dwelling units will be built there, adding approximately 80 dwelling units to the capacity estimate at that location (the initial capacity estimate was for 220 units). The specific studies undertaken by the city to update the plans for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and related Highway 99 Corridor have been targeted at clarifying and improving implementation rather than increasing capacity in those areas. Relationship to 2025 Population and Employment Targets The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and employment forecasts for the next 20 years within the Urban Growth Area. Snohomish County and its cities have worked together with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to arrive at forecasts that each city will use to accommodate its fair share of regional growth. The City of Edmonds’ share of regional growth by the year 2025 is 5,420 additional residents (approximately 3,079 residential units). By 2025, total population is expected to reach 44,880 residents. A comparison summary of additional population capacityhistorical growth and the 2025 2035 population and housing targets is presented in Figure 108 and Table 66. The city is able to consider a planning target within a range (shown as the “high” vs. “low” growth lines in Figure 8). Based on historical trends, the “low” target appears to be the most reasonable for Edmonds – particularly in light of the relatively high land values in the city. The land capacity analysis, combined with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan, indicates that both the projected targets for population and employment can be accommodated by the city through 2025. The adopted 2035 employment target for Edmonds is 13,948 jobs which represents an increase of 2,269 above the 11,679 people employed in the City in 2011. The 2012 Buildable Lands analysis showed a potential increased capacity of 2,820 employees by 2035, which has been increased to Packet Page 202 of 394 Land Use 53 3,522 using the same analysis employed in reviewing the housing and population capacity discussed above. The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to maximize the economic and environmental benefits of that infrastructure. The land capacity analysis indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate forecasted residential and employment growth under the Proposed Action and each of the land use alternatives. Given the extent to which future land use policies, regulations, demographics and market forces could affect land capacity estimates, however, it is important that development trends and remaining land supply within the city is regularly monitored in order to ensure the continued supply of adequate urban land throughout the 20-year GMA planning horizon. Implementation strategies should include development of a long-term program to monitor the city's progress towards goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the monitoring process, the city should work with the public, environmental and business leaders, interest groups, cities and other agencies to develop detailed monitoring criteria or "benchmarks" that could be used to measure progress and identify the need for corrective action. Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development. For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs – at least on a case- by-case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards; density bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review that lower financial development risks. Packet Page 203 of 394 54 Land Use . Figure 9 Edmonds Growth Targets vs. Historical Growth 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2025* Po p u l a t i o n Buildable Lands Capacity Low Growth Target Historical Growth High Growth Target Buildable Lands Capacity (45,207) Packet Page 204 of 394 Land Use 55 2000 2010 2035 (Plan Target) Population 39,515 39,709 45,550 Nominal Change -194 5,841 % Change -0.49%14.71% Annual % Change -0.16%0.55% Housing Units 17,508 18,378 21,168 Nominal Change -870 2,790 % Change -4.97%15.18% Avg HH Size 2.32 2.26 2.2 Avg Persons/Unit 2.26 2.16 2.15 Gross Density 1 3.1 3.16 3.64 Source: Census 2010, Buildable Lands Report 2012 Table 6 City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth Packet Page 205 of 394 56 Land Use Table 7 City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth 1990 2000 2025 (Plan Target) Population 30,744 39,515 44,880 Nominal Change 3,065 8,771 5,365 % Change 11.1% 28.5% 13.6% Annual % Change 1.1% 2.5% 0.5% Housing Units 12,945 17,508 20,587 Nominal Change 2,243 4,563 3,079 % Change 21.0% 35.2% 17.6% Avg HH Size 2.41 2.32 2.26 Avg Persons/Unit 2.37 2.26 2.18 Gross Density 1 2.7 3.1 3.6 Net Density 2 4.9 5.4 6.3 1 Gross Density = number of households per gross acre of land, city-wide. Note that this includes non-residential land, so the density per gross residential acre is significantly higher. 2 Net Density = number of households per net acre of land, after critical areas and rights-of- way are deducted. Note that this is includes non-residential land, so the density per net residential acre is significantly higher. Source: U.S. Census, 2000, and Edmonds Planning Division, 2004. Packet Page 206 of 394 Land Use 57 Land Use Concepts The VISION 2020 regional plan establishes a Activity Centers Introduction. The VISION 2040 regional plan establishes a growth management, transportation, environmental, and economic strategy for the Puget Sound region of central placesurban growth areas (UGAs) framed by open space and linked by efficient, high capacity transit. While the history and character of development in Edmonds does not support its designation as one of these regional centers, Tthe concepts developed in VISION 2020 2040 are supported in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The approach proposed in Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers located within the community, the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. based on the “Activity Clusters” described in VISION 2020: “These central places are smaller than the subregional and metropolitan centers and are not necessarily located on, or directly served by, the regional rapid transit system. They are not designated to receive a major share of the region’s employment growth, although they will certainly continue to see some new employment and residential development. Transit service will focus on connecting these places to the regional rapid transit system and to the adjacent metropolitan or subregional centers. In contrast with the subregional centers, the growth in employment in an activity cluster is for services oriented to serving the local residential community. In contrast with the small towns, activity clusters are part of the urban/suburban landscape; they are not separated from other areas by open space, agricultural lands or water.” [Vision 2020, October 1990, page 24] Activity Centers in Edmonds are intended to address the following framework goals: A.· Pedestrian-oriented - Provide a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity. B.· Mixed-use - Encourage mixed-use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi-family and small-lot single family development. C.· Community character - Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes with views, and the waterfront. D.· Multimodal -Encourage transit service and access. E.· Balanced (re)development - Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals. F.· Concurrency -Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors. G.· Urban design - Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring a consistent and coherent character of development. Packet Page 207 of 394 58 Land Use · Adaptive reuse - Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. Packet Page 208 of 394 Land Use 59 Packet Page 209 of 394 60 Land Use Downtown/ Waterfront Activity Center A. Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and these will have a profound impact on the future of the city’s downtown/ waterfront area. Some of these ongoing activities include: · Increased concern about conflicts and safety issues related to the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic. · Transportation planning and the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which will move the existing ferry terminal at the base of Main Street to a new multimodal transportation center at Pt. Edwards. · Continued development of the city’s waterfront parks and walkways into an interconnected necklace of public spaces. · The South County Senior Center is undertaking strategic planning to look at its facilities, programs, and services. · Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in the Port of Edmonds’ plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art. Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high priority. · Arts plans continue to be implemented throughout the downtown, including such projects as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Artworks facility, and the continued expansion of downtown festivals and events. · Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through new initiatives with the Edmonds Conference Center (formerly the Edmonds Floral Conference Center) and is working with the Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations. B. Downtown/Waterfront Vision. Taken together, the goals and policies for the Downtown/ Waterfront Activity Center present a vision for Edmonds downtown/ waterfront. By actively pursuing the ferry terminal’s relocation, the City has set upon an ambitious and exciting course. It is a course that holds promise for the downtown/ waterfront, but it is one that will require concerted action by the entire community, including local, state and federal public officials, business groups and citizens. While the challenges presented in this effort are substantial, the possible rewards are even greater, for with its existing physical assets, future opportunities and the energy of its citizens, Edmonds has the potential to create one of the region’s most attractive and vital city centers. Components of the overall vision for the downtown/ waterfront area include: · The Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal reduces negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while still providing a link between the Packet Page 210 of 394 Land Use 61 terminal and downtown Edmonds. The project provides the community with varied transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. · Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed-use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding lanes and SR-104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocates to Point Edwards. · The shoreline features a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, marina facilities, and supporting uses. · There is a more efficient transportation system featuring commuter and passenger trains, increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. Transportation conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic are resolved. · There is a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by both nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and that attracts visitors from throughout the region. · The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multi family development with new mixed-use development types. Single family neighborhoods are a part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of housing and character of downtown. · Opportunities for new development and redevelopment reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian-oriented character. Pedestrian-scale building height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. · Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. · Auto traffic is rerouted to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. · The City takes advantage of emerging technology and service innovations, such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle sharing, and WiFi or fiber communications systems. Downtown/Waterfront Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the downtown/waterfront area: · C. Goals for the Downtown/ Waterfront Area Goal A. To achieve this vision, goals for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center include: Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. Packet Page 211 of 394 62 Land Use A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues – and builds on – its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian-scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.4 Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. A.5 Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown/waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. · A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal B. Continue to plan for and implement improvements in the downtown/waterfront area that resolve safety conflicts while encouraging multi-modal transportation and access to the waterfront. B.1. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. B.2. Plan for improvements to resolve transportation and safety conflicts in the downtown/waterfront area. B.63. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal BC. Continue to plan for and implement the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center at Pt. Edwards – pursuing the design, permitting, land acquisition and development of the project. The completion of Edmonds Crossing will help address the competing needs of three regional facilities (transportation, parks and open space – including the Edmonds Marsh, and the Port of Edmonds) while providing opportunities for redevelopment and linkage between downtown Edmonds and its waterfront.B.1. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. Packet Page 212 of 394 Land Use 63 B.2C.1 Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. B.3.C.2. Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds – such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities – while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. B.4.C.3. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. B.5.C.4. Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core.B.6. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. · Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it’s economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian-scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. D.2 Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. D.3 Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown/waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, Packet Page 213 of 394 64 Land Use • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way-finding devices, • Restrooms. D.4 Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. D.5 Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. D.6 Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. D.7 Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. · D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. · E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. · Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses. · Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal G. Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g. convenience shopping, community activities). Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal H. Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically encouraging arts-related and arts-complementing uses. Packet Page 214 of 394 Land Use 65 H.1 Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water-oriented destination. Multi-modal D. Transportation. Primary goals of the City’s Downtown Waterfront Plan include integrating the downtown core with the waterfront, improving pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and encouraging mixed-use development. Current conditions limit the city's ability to achieve these plan goals by making it difficult to move between the two areas, thereby minimizing the value of the shoreline as a public resource and amenity while adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment. A number of studies and public involvement projects have been completed to determine how to meet the variety of transportation needs that converge within Downtown Edmonds. Following an initial 1992 Ferry Relocation Feasibility Study and a visioning focus group convened by Edmonds’ Mayor in April 1992, the importance of the conflicting transportation needs culminated in the City of Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, and Community Transit signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in November 1993. The MOU called for the cooperative development of solutions to the conflicts between the City’s growth plans and ferry traffic in particular. In response to that agreement, preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of alternatives began in late 1993. In 1994, the Edmonds City Council held public hearings on the possibility of relocating the existing ferry terminal and incorporating a new terminal within a larger multimodal project. As a result of the hearings, the Council expressed support for a regional multimodal facility. The Council also approved the 1994 Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan which specifically supported the facility’s location at Pt. Edwards. Further environmental review and facility definition resulted in a recommendation that an alternative site (other than the existing Main Street location) should be developed as a multimodal facility serving ferry, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel needs. Several alternative sites for the relocated ferry terminal and the proposed multimodal center were evaluated as part of the early environmental screening process. During this screening process, federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies—including affected Tribes— provided input regarding issues that could impact selecting reasonable alternatives. Based on this extensive screening process, two alternatives were recommended for further analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement process. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on February 25, 1998, and the Final EIS was issued on November 10, 2004. Pt. Edwards is the preferred alternative for a multimodal terminal site. In addition to the transportation benefits of moving the existing ferry terminal, a number of redevelopment opportunities will result within the downtown waterfront area. These range from park and public access improvements to opportunities for significant redevelopment and connections between the waterfront and downtown. Packet Page 215 of 394 66 Land Use Figure 110. Integration of the remaining ferry pier structure into surrounding parks will be a key public benefit and opportunity. Packet Page 216 of 394 Land Use 67 Edmonds Crossing. Edmonds Crossing is a multimodal transportation center proposed to be constructed at Point Edwards, the former UNOCAL oil storage facility south of the Edmonds Marina. This multimodal transportation center will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel, including rail, ferry, bus, bicycle, walking and ridesharing. The project is supported by local, regional, and state plans, including the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation and VISION 2020 2040 plan; Washington State Ferries’ (WSF) System Plan for 1999-2018; Snohomish County’s countywide Transportation Plan; the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan; and the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan. Edmonds Crossing will provide: · Intersection improvements at Pine Street and SR-104; · Interconnection of Amtrak service to Chicago and Vancouver, B.C., Sounder commuter rail service between Everett and Seattle, and other regional transportation modes; · Connections to the regional transit system with direct bus service to communities throughout the urban growth area; · Enhanced ability for people to rideshare, bicycle and walk to connect with travel opportunities at the multimodal center; · Improved safety and travel on Edmonds local streets and along SR-104 between the ferry terminal and I-5. · Linkage between Navy facilities at Everett and on the Kitsap peninsula. Packet Page 217 of 394 68 Land Use · Linkage between Navy facilities at Everett and on the Kitsap peninsula. Figure 121. Edmonds Crossing “preferred alternative” from the 2004 FEIS. · Packet Page 218 of 394 Land Use 69 The project includes: · A ferry terminal; · A train station; · A transit center for bus and regional transit, as well as the opportunity for riders to connect to downtown businesses via a local circulator service; · The flexibility to operate the facility to respond to changing travel demands; · Safety features including grade separation of train traffic from other modes of travel, designated vehicle parking and holding areas, and improved passenger waiting areas. While the Edmonds Crossing project will directly benefit the transportation system, the project will also provide significant benefits to downtown Edmonds. Completion of the project provides an opportunity to redevelop the existing ferry terminal facilities and the related holding lanes in the downtown area. Providing a connection from the new multimodal terminal to downtown Edmonds will potentially bring more visibility and visitors to the downtown area. E. Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy. The vision and goals for Downtown Waterfront Packet Page 219 of 394 70 Land Use Activity Center are designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. To implement this vision, a series of policies and an implementation strategy are intended to guide future public and private actions. Implementation Strategy. Key issues tied to the viability and health of the downtown waterfront area include using the Edmonds Crossing project to help resolve transportation issues, linking downtown with the waterfront, and taking advantage of redevelopment opportunities arising from emerging trends and public investments. The largest single factor affecting the downtown waterfront area is the timing and construction of the Edmonds Crossing project. Because of this, a two-phased downtown waterfront redevelopment strategy is envisioned. The first phase includes actions taken before the existing ferry terminal is relocated to the Pt. Edwards site, and is intended to include actions taken to support ongoing redevelopment and arts-related improvements downtown. This phase will also set the framework for subsequent redevelopment after the terminal’s relocation. The second phase is aimed at comprehensive redevelopment to link the downtown with the waterfront, better utilize shoreline resources, increase economic viability and provide the setting for a broad range of community functions. Short Term Actions. Short term actions are those actions that can take place prior to construction of the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 5-7 years. 1. Develop a short term plan and strategy to address transportation conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the waterfront area. 12. Plan for the Edmonds Crossing project at Pt. Edwards which includes relocation of the existing ferry terminal. Planning should also include reuse of the current ferry terminal and related holding area. 23. Improve the existing downtown rail station between Dayton and Main Streets in order to better accommodate inter-city passenger and commuter rail service, including provisions for bus and commuter traffic as well as pedestrian connections to the waterfront and downtown. During the short term planning period, evaluate the feasibility and benefits of retaining a commuter rail and transit presence downtown after the construction of Edmonds Crossing. 34. Plan for future joint public/private development of the area between SR-104 and the railroad tracks. Planning activities could potentially include infrastructure planning, property acquisition, parking management, development incentives and guidelines or modifications to land use regulations (such as zoning or master planning). Although Amtrak and commuter rail service will be included as a part of the Edmonds Crossing project, the City and transit service providers should examine whether a commuter rail stop can be retained between Dayton and Main Streets in order to provide improved service and stimulate potential redevelopment of the surrounding area. 45. Upgrade secondary downtown streets for pedestrians. Implement the city’s public urban design plan and street tree plan while expanding public amenities and streetscape improvements in areas where these do not already exist. These improvements are particularly needed along Main and Dayton Streets in the area between downtown and the waterfront in order to improve pedestrian connections between downtown and the waterfront area. Pedestrian improvements should be combined with traffic improvement projects where applicable. Packet Page 220 of 394 Land Use 71 56. Continue to promote shoreline management and public access to the city’s beaches, parks, and walkways. 67. Continue implementing a continuous shoreline walkway (boardwalk/esplanade) from Brackett’s Landing North to Point Edwards. Work with the Port of Edmonds to integrate recreation and marina functions into the long term plan. 78. Work with the Senior Center to plan for long term needs for the senior center facilities and programs. 89. Encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and redevelopment of downtown properties. Housing should be provided to serve a diverse community, including single family homes, multi family apartments and condominiums, housing as part of mixed use developments, and housing connected with live/work developments that could also encourage an arts- oriented community in the downtown area. A special focus for arts-supporting live/work arrangements could be in the corridor and nearby residential areas linking downtown with the Edmonds Center for the Arts. 910. Begin improvements to mitigate ferry terminal traffic (and other traffic) increases, as envisioned in the Edmonds Crossing project and the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. 1011. Develop “gateways” at key entrances to the downtown area which enhance the identity and sense of place for downtown. Gateways should signal that visitors are entering downtown Edmonds, and should include elements such as public art, landscaping, signage and directional (“way-finding”) aids. Long Term Actions. Long term actions are those actions that can take place during or after construction of the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 7-20 years. 1. Complete a multi modal transportation center at Point Edwards for: · Rail (inter-city and commuter) · Ferry · Park & Ride/Auto · Bus · Pedestrian and shuttle connections to other features and amenities. 2. Complete redevelopment of the Point Edwards site consistent with an overall master plan that provides for commercial or mixed use development compatible with the Edmonds Crossing project. 3. Coordinate circulation and public parking with Port development. 4. Continue to protect and enhance existing wetlands and continue to develop supporting non- intrusive interpretive trails and exhibits. 5. Continue development of a “necklace” of shoreline parks with improvements, focusing on missing links in the park and walkway system. Retain and expand existing parks, providing linkages whenever property acquisitions or easements become available for public use. Packet Page 221 of 394 72 Land Use 6. Encourage the development of centralized parking facilities as part of redevelopment projects. Under the right circumstances, these types of facilities can provide an efficient mechanism for consolidating expensive parking improvements while freeing up land for more intensive and desirable uses that support local housing, commercial, and pedestrian activities. Public/private partnerships should be explored when the opportunity arises, both in private and public projects (e.g. the commuter rail station downtown). Centralized parking facilities could be built as part of a master- planned mixed-use development. 7. Redevelop the existing ferry terminal site at the base of Main Street according to a master plan after the existing ferry terminal has been relocated to Point Edwards. This is a unique location, situated in the midst of a continuous park and beach setting, and provides opportunities for public/private partnerships. Ideas to be pursued include public “festival” entertainment or activity space, visitor moorage, park and public walkways, and other uses that would encourage this as to become a destination drawing people from south along the waterfront and eastward up into downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas. 8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed. 9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior center. These plans should reinforce the center’s place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to the walkways and parks along the shoreline. 10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various “districts” described for the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for the downtown waterfront area: E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues – and builds on – its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. E.2. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. Packet Page 222 of 394 Land Use 73 E.3. Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. E.4. Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds – such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities – while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. E.6. Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian-scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core. E.7. Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water-oriented destination. E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. Packet Page 223 of 394 74 Land Use E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it’s economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian-scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. E.17. Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: · Weather protection, · Street trees and flower baskets, · Street furniture, · Public art and art integrated into private developments, · Pocket parks, · Signage and other way-finding devices, · Restrooms. E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Packet Page 224 of 394 Land Use 75 Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail-compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service – e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front façades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area. Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries being located at street level. Building design and height shall be compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian- scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees, landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the arts center should be encouraged – such as restaurants, cafés, galleries, live/work use arrangements, and B&Bs. Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required (i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between). Packet Page 225 of 394 76 Land Use Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian- friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from upper building levels. Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water-oriented and water-dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development while providing incentives to encourage public view corridors. Roof and building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of its high sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular, landmark buildings of high quality design which take advantage of the visibility and physical environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront. Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public walkways and street fronts. Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut. Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto-oriented uses would be permitted in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind the commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Planned Residential-Office. Several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset Ave between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for small- scale development which provides for a mix of limited office and residential uses which provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single- Packet Page 226 of 394 Land Use 77 family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and single-family character. Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown/ waterfront area that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. These design objectives can be found in the Urban Design section of this document. Packet Page 227 of 394 78 Land Use 1. Site Design The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. Vehicular Access and Parking a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians’ comfort and ease of access in mind. c. Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the pedestrian streetscape. d. In the Retail Core, adopt a “park and walk” policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and ease of access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no requirement to provide on-site parking. e. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetscape. f. Provide safe routes for disabled people. Pedestrian Access and Connections a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general commercial, and residential areas. b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to buildings should be maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at street level to be directly accessed from the sidewalk. d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas. Packet Page 228 of 394 Land Use 79 Building Entry Location a. Create an active, safe and lively street-edge. b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment. c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses. d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Building Setbacks a. Provide for a human, pedestrian-friendly scale for downtown buildings. b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot. d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. Building/Site Identity a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large mixed use or commercial projects. b. Improve pedestrian access and way-finding by providing variety in building forms, color, materials and individuality of buildings. c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in downtown. Weather Protection a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks in downtown. b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain or snow. Packet Page 229 of 394 80 Land Use c. Provide a covered waiting area and walkway for pedestrians entering a building, coming from parking spaces and the public sidewalk. Lighting a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries, walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security. b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and support nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians. c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off-site. d. Create a sense of welcome and activity. Packet Page 230 of 394 Land Use 81 Signage a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered. b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and to improve orientation and way-finding downtown. d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters. e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. f. Signage and other way-finding methods should be employed to assist citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services. g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and composting. b. Minimize noise and odor. c. Minimize visual intrusion. d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas Art and Public Spaces a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with incentives provided to encourage these elements. c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. 2. Building Form Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. Packet Page 231 of 394 82 Land Use Height a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds. b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, incentives or design standards may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. c. Preserve public view corridors along east-west downtown streets – such as Main Street and Dayton Street – that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west. Massing a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale streetscape elements found along downtown’s pedestrian streets. b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building. c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into smaller elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building mass, these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian-friendly result. Roof Modulation a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form. b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building. c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building. d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building. e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape. Wall Modulation a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds. b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a facade. c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades. Packet Page 232 of 394 Land Use 83 d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment. e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building. 3. Building Façade Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings that defines the character and visual appearance of a place, is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. Facade Requirements a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating the pedestrian-oriented street level of buildings from upper floors. b. Ensure diversity in design. c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds. d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long façades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds. f. Create individual identity in buildings. Packet Page 233 of 394 84 Land Use Window Variety and Articulation a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the façade. Building Façade Materials A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building’s style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client’s needs. It is particularly important to differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the pedestrian’s line of sight. Accents/Colors/Trim A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and colors applied to a façade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective is to encourage new development that provides: • Compatibility with the surrounding environment, • Visual interest and variety in building forms, • Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses, • Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. Packet Page 234 of 394 Land Use 85 Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor H. Medical/Highway 99 Vision. The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Swedish/Edmonds Hospital medical center and Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high-intensity development corridor along Highway 99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian- friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park-like atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: · Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal A. To eExpand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center. · Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal B. ; Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting of a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and landscaped surroundings and inter- connected development. B.1 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. H.1.a. B.2 Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher-intensity mixed use development to nearby single family residential areas. · B.3 Provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into the City of Edmonds.; Packet Page 235 of 394 86 Land Use Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal C. Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access patterns on local streets. C.1 Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density. However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center – and adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor – should still be provided in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit. · Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal D. ; Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. D.1 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of links to future high-capacity transit that develops along corridors such as Highway 99. · ; Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal E.To provide a buffer between the high-intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR 99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West. E.1 Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping and visual buffering, and pedestrian-scale streetscape design. · Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal F.; To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mix of single family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with public facilities. F.1 In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential uses. · ; Packet Page 236 of 394 Land Use 87 · To provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into the City of EdmondsMedical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal G. ; H.2. To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school, the hospital, and transit services and facilities. G.1 Within the activity center, policies to achieve these goals include the following: H.3. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher-intensity mixed use development to nearby single family residential areas. H.4. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of links to future high-capacity transit that develops along corridors such as Highway 99. H.5. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access. Packet Page 237 of 394 88 Land Use H.6. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. H.7. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping and visual buffering, and pedestrian-scale streetscape design. Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density. However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center – and adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor – should still be provided in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit. H.8. In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential uses. I. Packet Page 238 of 394 Land Use 89 J. Goals for the Highway 99 Corridor Vision. Highway 99 occupies a narrow strip of retail and commercial uses bounded by residential neighborhoods. Historically, the corridor has developed in a patchwork of uses, without a clear focus or direction. To improve planning for the future of the corridor, the City established a task force in 2003-2004, resulting in the Highway 99 Enhancement Report and a related economic analysis. During this process, local residents were contacted and asked to participate in two focus groups to identify current problems and future aspirations for the corridor. After this preliminary survey with the residents, the City invited business owners to participate in two charrette meetings to brainstorm ideas and evaluate possible ways to induce redevelopment in the area. After concepts were developed, Berk & Associates, an economics consultant, performed a market assessment of the enhancement strategy. The following diagram summarizes the general approach that resulted from this work: a series of focus areas providing identity and a clustering of activity along the corridor, providing opportunities for improved economic development while also improving linkages between the corridor and surroundin g residential areas. Packet Page 239 of 394 90 Land Use Highway 99 Corridor Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the Highway 99 Corridor. With this background in mind, specific goals for the Highway 99 Corridor include: Highway 99 Corridor Goal A. Improve access and circulation. Access to businesses for both pedestrians and automobiles is difficult along major portions of the corridor. The inability of pedestrians to cross the street and for automobiles to make safe turns is a critical limitation on enhanced development of the corridor into a stronger economic area. Better pedestrian crossings are also needed to support transit use, especially as Highway 99 becomes the focus of future high capacity transit initiatives. A.1 Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas, while coordinating with high-capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor. A.2 Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization and other measures. A.3 Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. A.4 Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. · Highway 99 Corridor Goal B. The City should consider the different sections along the corridor and emphasize their unique opportunities rather than view the corridor as an undifferentiated continuum. Street improvements and, in some cases regulatory measures can encourage these efforts. Focus on specific nodes or segments within the corridor. Identity elements such as signage should indicate that the corridor is within the City of Edmonds, and show how connections can be made to downtown and other Edmonds locations. B.1 New development should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. J.1.a. B.2 The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area. Packet Page 240 of 394 Land Use 91 Packet Page 241 of 394 92 Land Use J.1.b. B.3 Provide a system of “focus areas” along the corridor which provide opportunities for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus areas identified on the previous pagein the “Highway 99 Corridor Vision” include the following: The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from th I t b t il The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from the Interurban trail. The “Hospital Community and Family The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from the Interurban trail. The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from the Interurban trail. Packet Page 242 of 394 Land Use 93 · Highway 99 Corridor Goal C. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. During the City’s Highway 99 Task Force work, residents noted that they needed a number of services that are not presently provided along the corridor. This can provide an opportunity that might be part of a larger business strategy. At the same time, new development should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. C.1 Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. C.2 New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially-zoned properties C.3 Provide adequate buffering between higher intensity uses and adjoining residential neighborhoods Highway 99 Corridor Goal D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur. D.1 Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. D.2 Within the Corridor, highrise nodes should be located to provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be: D.2.a Supported by adequate services and facilities; D.2.b Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques. D.2.c Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access. D.2.d Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. Packet Page 243 of 394 94 Land Use J.1.c. · Within the Highway 99 corridor, policies to achieve these goals include the following: J.2. Provide a system of “focus areas” along the corridor which provide opportunities for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus areas identified on the previous page include the following: Packet Page 244 of 394 Land Use 95 Packet Page 245 of 394 96 Land Use J.3. Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas, while coordinating with high-capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor. J.4. Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization and other measures. J.5. New development should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. J.6. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. J.7. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially-zoned properties. J.8. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. J.9. Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. J.10. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. J.11. The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area. J.12. Within the Corridor, highrise nodes should be located to provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be: J.12.a. Supported by adequate services and facilities; Packet Page 246 of 394 Land Use 97 J.12.b. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques. J.12.c. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access. J.12.d. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. Master Planned Development Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses, access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center, development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference: A. Edmonds-Woodway High School B. Stevens Hospital C.B. City Park D.C. Pine Ridge Park E.D. Southwest County Park F. The Edmonds Crossing project, as identified in the Final EIS for Edmonds Crossing issued on November 10, 2004. In addition to the master plans listed above, master plans can also be implemented through zoning contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the plan. In these cases, the master plan must still be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies for the area. Residential Development G. General. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington stateState. Located on the shores of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town, quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for annexation and development is limited. Packet Page 247 of 394 98 Land Use Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens. Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves conditions for all citizens. When the City’s first comprehensive plan completed under the State Growth Management Act was adopted in 1995, the City adopted plan designations for single family areas that were based in large measure on historical development patterns, which often recognized development limitations due to environmentally sensitive areas (slopes, landslide hazards, streams, etc.). In the years since the first GMA comprehensive plans were approved by local jurisdictions, there have been a number of cases brought before the State’s GMA Hearings Boards. The direction provided by the GMA and these subsequent “elaborations” via the Hearings Board challenges can be summarized as: 1. The GMA requires 4 dwelling units per acre as the minimum urban residential density in urban areas such as Edmonds. 2. All land within the urban area must be designated at appropriate urban densities. Calculating average density across an entire subarea or city does not meet this test – for example you cannot use higher-density multi family areas in one part of a city to justify lower-density single family areas elsewhere in the city. The GMA Hearings Board decision in Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case #495-3-0039c (Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995, p.35) includes this statement: The Board instead adopts as a general rule a “bright line” at four net dwelling units per acre. Any residential pattern at that density, or higher, is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by the Act. Any larger urban lots will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board to determine if the number, locations, configurations and rationale for such lot sizes complies with the goals and requirements of the Act, and the jurisdiction’s ability to meet its obligations to accept any allocated share of county-wide population. Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, 1- or 2.5- acre lots may be appropriate in an urban setting in order to avoid excessive development pressures on or near environmentally sensitive areas. However, this circumstance can be expected to be infrequent within the UGA and must not constitute a pattern over large areas. With this as background, the City’s review and update of its comprehensive plan has attempted to combine an assessment of its large lot zoning (RS-12, RSW-12 and RS-20) with an update of its critical areas inventories and regulations. The inventories, based on data available from City and other sources, were not available to the City when the 1995 comprehensive plan was adopted. These inventories provide information necessary to refine the City’s single family plan designations and comprehensive plan map. Packet Page 248 of 394 Land Use 99 In 2004, the City refined its land use and zoning maps to more closely relate its large lot zoning to existing critical areas patterns. In preparing its updated comprehensive plan map, an overlay was done of the 2004 critical areas inventory with currently designated large lot single family areas. City staff analyzed the pattern of critical areas compared with land use designations, and applied the following logic to identify areas that could and could not be justified for continuing to be designated for large lot single family development. Land use and zoning designations were adjusted during the 2004/2005 plan update process to provide for this increased level of consistency. 1. Staff used the city’s GIS system to overlay the preliminary critical areas inventory with existing zoning (which is consistent with the current comprehensive plan). 2. In reviewing the existing large-lot plan and zoning designations (plan designations of “Single Family – Large Lot” equate to RS-12, RSW-12, or RS-20 zoning), the location of large-lot designations was compared to patterns of critical areas. 3. Patterns of critical areas – i.e. where combinations of critical areas were present (e.g. slopes and habitat, or streams and wetlands, etc.) or where extensive areas were covered by critical areas – were considered sufficient justification to continue large-lot single family designations. Larger lot sizes provide more opportunity to avoid disturbance of existing natural features – particularly vegetative cover – and provide an opportunity to maintain linkages between critical areas and habitat. Larger lots sizes in areas subject to landslide hazard also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes, and also reduce the probability that continued slide activity will harm people or residences. This approach is consistent with the logic and analysis contained in the City’s Best Available Science Report (EDAW, November 2004) accompanying the adoption of the City’s updated critical areas regulations. 4. Small, isolated critical areas were not considered sufficient to justify continued large-lot single family designations. 5. Lots where the designation is to be changed are grouped by subdivision or neighborhood segment, so that streets or changes in lot pattern define the boundaries. 6. In at least a couple of situations, areas were included for re-designation when the development pattern indicated that a substantial number of lots already existed that were smaller than 12,000 sq. ft. in area. 7. Where patterns of critical areas exist, at least a tier of lots (using similar groupings as those used in #5 above) is maintained bordering the critical areas. This is based on the following logic: As the Best Available Science Report and updated critical areas regulations indicate, the City’s intent is to take a conservative approach to protecting critical areas. Relatively large buffers are proposed (consistent with the science), but these are balanced by the ability of existing developed areas to continue infill activity in exchange for enhancing critical areas buffers. The goal is to obtain enhanced protection of resources within the city, while recognizing infill development must continue to occur. However, a conservative approach to Packet Page 249 of 394 100 Land Use resource protection implies that the City be cautious in making wholesale changes in zoning that could result in more development impacts to critical areas. This is particularly true since the buffers proposed in the new regulations are substantial increases over previous regulations; without larger lot sizes in areas that are substantially impacted by critical areas, there would be little or no opportunity to mitigate critical areas impacts – especially when surrounding areas have already been developed. Caution is also needed considering that the mapped inventory is based on general sources from other agencies and is likely to underestimate the amount of steep slopes, for example. Following this work, a map of proposed changes was prepared which identified single family large lot zones that could not be justified based on the presence of critical areas. These areas (comprising over 500 acres) have been re-designated as either Single Family – Urban 3 or Single Family Master Plan in the updated comprehensive plan. Current Plan Designation Proposed Plan Designation Corresponding Zoning Single Family – Small Lot Single Family – Urban 1 RS-6, RS-8 Single Family – Urban 2 RS-8 Single Family – Urban 3 RS-10* Single Family – Large Lot Single Family – Resource RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20 Single Family Master Plan Single Family Master Plan * RS-10 would be a new zoning classification, providing for a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. The densities that correspond to these plan and zoning designations are summarized in the following table: Plan Designation Zoning Classification Maximum Density (Net Density) Single Family – Urban 1 RS-6 RS-8 7.3 DU/Acre 5.5 DU/Acre Single Family – Urban 2 RS-8 5.5 DU/Acre Single Family – Urban 3 RS-10 4.4 DU/Acre Single Family – Urban Master Plan RS-6 or RS-8 with Master Plan overlay 5.5 or 7.3 DU/Acre Single Family – Resource RS-12, RSW-12 RS-20 3.7 DU/Acre 2.2 DU/Acre Packet Page 250 of 394 Land Use 101 The “Single Family – Urban Master Plan” designation would only apply to the area lying along the south side of SR-104 north of 228th Street SW; properties seeking to develop at the higher urban density lot pattern would need to be developed according to a master plan (such as through a PRD) that clearly indicated access and lot configurations that would not result in traffic problems for SR-104. H. Residential Goal A. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: H.1. A.1 Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. H.2. A.2 Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. H.3. A.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. H.4. A.4 Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. H.4.a. A.5 Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: H.4.b. A.5.a Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. H.4.c. A.5.b Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. H.4.d. A.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. H.4.e. A.5.d Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. H.5. A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. I. Residential Goal B.Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: Packet Page 251 of 394 102 Land Use I.1. B.1 Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. I.1.a. B.1.a Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). I.1.b. B.1.b Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple-family zoning. I.2. B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. I.2.a. B.2.a Location Policies. I.2.a.i. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. I.2.b. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. I.2.b.i. B.2.b.iRM RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. I.2.b.ii. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. I.2.b.iii. B.2.b.iii The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. I.2.c. B.2.c. General Design Policies. I.2.c.i. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. I.2.c.ii. B.2.c.ii SSite and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. I.3. B.3 Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior. Packet Page 252 of 394 Land Use 103 Commercial Land Use J. General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business, citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various requirements of the City's codes and policies. The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. Commercial Development Goals and Plan Policies. The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas (commercial, community commercial, neighborhood commercial, Westgate Corridor, Edmonds Way Corridor, and sexually oriented businesses), followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also meet. K. Goals for 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. All commercial development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe, convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies: K.1. A.1 A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be identified and reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites should be selected from parcels of land already identified in the comprehensive plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such use. K.2. A.2 Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses. K.3. A.3 The proliferation of strip commercial areas along Edmonds streets and highways and the development of commercial uses poorly related to surrounding land uses should be strongly discouraged. K.4. A.4 The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. K.5. A.5 All commercial developments should be carefully located and designed to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other related problems on surrounding land uses. Packet Page 253 of 394 104 Land Use K.6. A.6 Special consideration should be given to major land use decisions made in relation to downtown Edmonds. L. Commercial Development Goal B. Goals for Community Commercial Areas. Community Ccommercial areas are comprised of commercial development serving a dual purpose: services and shopping for both local residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial designation is to recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character. L.1. B.1 Permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both the local neighborhood and regional through-traffic. L.2. B.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate automobile traffic. L.3. B.3 Provide for the pedestrian-scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity. L.4. B.4 Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. Commercial Development Goal C. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood Ccommercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto-oriented commercial “strip malls” with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed-use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian-oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. M. C.1 The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals: M.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. M.2. C.2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. M.3. C.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. Packet Page 254 of 394 Land Use 105 M.4. C.4 Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. M.5. C.5 Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street-level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. M.5.a. C.6 Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus strengtheningthus are strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are detailed below. M.5.b. C.6.a Five Corners M.5.b.i. C.6.a.i In the Five Corners neighborhood commercial area, development should be oriented to the street and respond to the unique character of the intersection, including a planned intersection improvement. Parking should be provided at the rear of development, where possible, or underground. C.6.a.ii Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial space. C.6.a.iii At a minimum, commercial uses should be located on the ground level of development. Commercial or residential uses may occupy upper levels. C.6.a.iv. As a major intersection, streetscape and way-finding design should create an attractive “gateway” to the downtown and other neighborhoods. (Link to streetscape plan update.) Intersection and street design should accommodate and encourage pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood commercial area. M.5.c. C.6.b. Firdale Village C.6.a.i In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrian-oriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented toward the street in order to maximize visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures. C.6.a.ii Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of Packet Page 255 of 394 106 Land Use buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial space. N. Commercial Development Goal D. Goals for the Westgate Corridor. The Westgate Corridor is generally located between the 100th Avenue W (9th Avenue S)/Edmonds Way intersection and where Edmonds Way turns north to enter the downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves as both a key transportation corridor and as an entry into the downtown. Long-established neighborhoods lie near both sides of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to recognize its multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale businesses while promoting compatible development that will not intrude into established neighborhoods. N.1. D.1 Development within the Westgate Corridor should be designed to recognize its role as part of an entryway into Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect should be a corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median. The landscaped median along SR-104 should remain as uninterrupted as possible in order to promote traffic flow and provide an entry effect. N.2. D.2 Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily intended to serve the local neighborhood while not contributing significantly to traffic congestion. N.3. D.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. N.4. D.4 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. N.5. D.5 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. O. Commercial Development Goal E. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. O.1. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. O.2. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. Packet Page 256 of 394 Land Use 107 O.3. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. O.4. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. P. Commercial Development Goal F. Goals for Sexually Oriented Businesses. These types ofSexually Oriented Bbusinesses are regulated by specific licensing and operating provisions in the City Code. However, land use and zoning regulations are also required to mitigate and reduce the adverse secondary effects of these uses. These secondary effects are detailed in the findings adopted by Ordinance No. 3117 on October 15, 1996. As commercial uses, sexually oriented businesses should be limited to areas which can support the traffic and site requirements of these businesses while also assuring that their adverse secondary effects are mitigated. The following policies apply to sexually oriented businesses: P.1. F.1 Provide for potential commercial locations within the City for sexually oriented businesses which will provide at least a minimum separation and buffering necessary to protect public health and safety. P.2. F.2 Separate the location of sexually oriented businesses from uses that are incompatible with the secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. These incompatible uses include residential uses and uses such as public parks, public libraries, museums, public or private schools, community centers, and religious facilities. They also include bars and taverns. P.3. F.3 Adopt specific development regulations, such as lighting, parking and access provisions, that are designed to reduce or mitigate the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. P.4. F.4 Provide a mechanism to monitor, on an annual basis, the availability of potential sites for the location of sexually oriented businesses. Industrial Land Use Q. General. Interestingly, industrial development played a major role in the early development of Edmonds. Sawmills, wharves, log ponds and other wood products industries lined the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the twentieth century. However, as time passed, Edmonds developed into a very attractive residential community and its once thriving lumber industry faded into oblivion. Today, Edmonds still retains much of its residential, small town charm despite the large amount of urban development which has occurred in and around the City during the outward expansion of the Seattle metropolitan area during the past twenty-five years. Packet Page 257 of 394 108 Land Use Industrial development in the more traditional sense has not occurred in Edmonds to a significant degree since its early Milltown days. Most new industry which has located in the community since the 1950's has been largely of light manufacturing or service industry nature. Some examples include furniture manufacturing, printing and publishing, electronic components assembly and health care services. Future industrial development should be carefully controlled in order to insure that it is compatible with the residential character of Edmonds. Small scale, business-park oriented light industries and service related industries should be given preference over more intensive large scale industries. Great care should be given to carefully siting and designing all new industrial development in order to fully minimize or eliminate its adverse off-site impacts. R. Industrial Land Use Goal A. A select number of industrial areas should be located and developed which are reasonably attractive and contribute to the economic growth and stability of Edmonds without degrading its natural or residential living environment, in accordance with the following policies: R.1. A.1 Light industrial uses should be given preference over heavy industrial uses. R.2. A.2 The clustering of industrial uses in planned industrial parks should be required when the site is adequate. R.3. A.3 Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting residential areas, parks and other public-institutional land uses. R.4. A.4 All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad lines). Open Space S. General.ly Iin urban areas, a lack of open space has been one of the major causes of residential blight. This lack has contributed to the movement of people from older densely developed neighborhoods to peripheral areas still possessing open areas. Open space is important in defining the character of the Edmonds area and should be preserved and enhanced for enjoyment by current and future generations. Open space provides many benefits for people and natural systemsmust be reserved now for assurance that future settled areas are relieved by significant open land, providing recreational opportunities as well as visual appeal. Not all vacant land in the City should be considered desirable or valuable for open space classification. Therefore, the following set of criteria-standards haveset of criteria-standards has been developed for determining those areas most important for this classification. Packet Page 258 of 394 Land Use 109 T. Goal.Open Space Goal A. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the urban and suburbanEdmonds environment, in accordance with the following policies. T.1. A.1 Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and appropriate areas designed as open space. T.1.a. A.1.a No city-owned property should be relinquished until all possible community uses have been explored. T.2. A.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: T.2.a. A.2.a Lands which have unique scientific or educational values. T.2.b. A.2.b Areas which have an abundance of wildlife, particularly where there are habitats of rare or endangered species. T.2.c. A.2.c Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the priority to highways classified as scenic. T.2.d. A.2.d Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as water sheds or natural drainage ways. T.2.e. A.2.e Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or industrial development. T.2.f. A.2.f Bogs and wetlands. T.2.g. A.2.g Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and adjacent uses. T.2.h. A.2.h Lands which would have unique suitability for future passive or active recreational uses both passive and active. T.2.i. A.2.i Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation. - T.3. A.3 Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate setback space and separation between structures. U. Open Space Goal B. Goal. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies: U.1. B.1 Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs. U.2. B.2 Wherever possible, Provide provide wherever possible, vehicular or pedestrianpublic access to public bodies of water. Packet Page 259 of 394 110 Land Use Soils and Topography V. General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental amenity character of the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These are frequentlycan often be areas where natural drainage ways and stands of trees or habitat exist and where the second growth forest is still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for urban certain kinds of development. Based on soil, and slope, and geological analysis for the city, several areas may be identified as potentially hazardous for urban specific types of development. (See report to Environmental Subcommittee on Soils and Topography, February 3, 1975.) Some areas which are limited for intensive development are may be desirable for public recreation, open spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological communities, and protection of natural storm drainage systems. In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development, grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property. W. Soils and Topography Goal A. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: W.1. A.1 Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD’s, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. W.2. A.2 Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillsides. X. Soils and Topography Goal B. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: X.1. B.1 Grading and Filling. X.1.a. B.1.a Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. X.1.b. B.1.b Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. X.1.c. B.1.c Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. X.1.d. B.1.d Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. Packet Page 260 of 394 Land Use 111 X.2. B.2. Building Construction. X.2.a. B.2.a Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. X.2.b. B.2.b Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. X.2.c. B.2.c Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. X.3. B.3. Erosion Control. X.3.a. B.3.a Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. X.3.b. B.3.b Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. X.3.c. B.3.c Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. Packet Page 261 of 394 112 Land Use Water Resources and Drainage Management Y. General. The environmental amenity of the City of Edmonds is greatly enhanced by the numerous year round streams and the location of the City on Puget Sound. Lake Ballinger, besides being a well-known landmark, is an important environmental area because of its ecological benefits and open space quality. The storm drainage and stream systems in the Edmonds area are part of the Cedar River Drainage Basin. There are two sub-basins in the area: McAleer Creek, which drains to Lake Washington and the Upper Puget Sound sub-basin which drains to Puget Sound. Urban development in the past has interfered with natural storm drainage systems and greatly increased the area of impermeable surfaces. It has been necessary to install culverts, underground drainage courses and other major structures to accommodate runoff water. Because of climate, topography and soil conditions, severe erosion and drainage to stream banks may occur with future development. Urban runoff causes significant decreases in water quality because of the quantity of pollutants in the runoff water. The Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study conducted for the River Basin Coordinating Committee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle indicates that future development in the Puget Sound and McAleer sub-basins will overburden existing systems. The water quality in Lake Ballinger is already an urgent and serious problem because the lake is shallow, contains a high level of nutrients and has seasonal oxygen deficiencies. Packet Page 262 of 394 Land Use 113 The quality of water in Puget Sound is a less immediate problem but must be considered in the long term. Both Edmonds and Lynnwood dispose of effluent in the Sound which has received primary treatment only. Increased recreational use of the waterfront will have water quality impacts also. Some streams in the City have supported fish runs from the Sound in the past and many people in the community would like to see a restoration of these fisheries. The high costs both financially and environmentally of installation of structures and alteration of natural systems is an important consideration in planning for environmental management. Because environmental systems cross political boundaries a high degree of interlocal cooperation will be necessary to fully utilize funds available through the Water Pollution Control Act; however, the Act may provide substantial funds in the future for planning and improvement of facilities. Z. Resources and Drain Management Goal A. The City should continue to upgrade the public storm drainage system in order to protect the man-made and natural environment. In the management of storm drainage and urban runoff, the City should utilize the natural drainage system where it is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural drainage ways, in accordance with the following policies: Z.1. A.1 The natural drainage system (i.e., streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently culverted except where no other alternative exists. Temporary culverting of streams shall be permitted during construction where site conditions present no other alternative. The natural condition should be restored immediately following construction. Packet Page 263 of 394 114 Land Use Z.2. A.2 Earthmoving equipment shall not cause siltation or deterioration of water quality. Rechanneling of streams is permitted only when the stream bed location renders the site undevelopable. Z.3. A.3 Imagination and care should be used in the design of retention ponds and other drainage facilities so that they will blend into the natural environment rather than detract from it. Z.4. A.4 Riprapping of stream banks and gravelling of stream beds is permitted when the Engineering Department determines that stability or sediment retention is necessary. Z.5. A.5 Decorative ponding, cascading, and building artificial waterfalls are permitted except in those streams where it would present a barrier to the migration of fish. Z.6. A.6 Building foundation and footings shall be no closer than 15 feet to a stream bank and shall be sited to create minimum disruption to the drainage system. Z.7. A.7 The quality and quantity of water leaving a site shall be the same as that entering the site. Z.8. A.8 Retention basins and other devices shall be used to encourage on-site runoff absorption and prevent overloading of existing drainage systems except in those areas where it is necessary to remove water from the site quickly due to unstable soil conditions to prevent earth slides and subsequent danger to life and property. Z.9. A.9 Regional retention/detention is generally recognized as a more efficient and practical method of runoff control and will be given first consideration before individual on-site systems are allowed as part of development projects. [Ord. 2527, 1985.] Packet Page 264 of 394 Land Use 115 Vegetation and Wildlife AA. General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the natural native vegetation has become increasingly scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Natural vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and clean pollutants from the air. The beauty of the natural growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities. Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the aesthetic quality of human life. City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms. "People pressure" continuecontinues to destroy many organisms and their habitats each year. The number and species of organisms is diminishing yearly. Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and resident bird life. Underdeveloped wWooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and mammals. Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas. BB. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: BB.1. A.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172 (BAS). BB.2. A.2 The removal of trees should be minimized, particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. BB.3. A.3 Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. BB.4. A.4 Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. CC. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal B. Goal. The city should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats (woodlands, marshes, streams and beaches) of the city's wildlife in accordance with the following policies: CC.1. B.1 Establish and maintain a variety of educational and recreational programs and activities for all age levels. CC.2. B.2 Erect and maintain an educational displays that identifies identify some of the more common plants and animals and the ecology of major habitats, (i.e.e.g., sand, rock, piling and deepwater). Packet Page 265 of 394 116 Land Use CC.3. B.3 Prevent the unnecessary disturbance of native species and organisms from beach and near-shore environments. Establish and publicize regulations prohibiting removal of non-food organisms from beach areas without collecting permit; permit for educational and research use only. CC.4. B.4 Encourage landscaping and site improvement on city-owned property which recognizes value of habitat in overall site design. the dependency of some species upon certain types of vegetation for food and cover. CC.5. B.5. City park property which serves as a habitat for wildlife should be left natural with minimum development for nature trail type of use. Air Pollution DD. General. Air pollution is primarily a regional problem related to urbanization and meteorological conditions in the Puget Sound Basin. It is the result of activities in which most citizens participate. Air pollution can cause severe health effects and property damage under certain conditions. (See Facts on Air Pollution - Regional and Local: Report to Community Development Task Force.) EE. Air Pollution Goal A. Clean air is a right to all citizens of the City of Edmonds and should be protected and maintained in accordance with the following policies: EE.1. A.1 Discourage expansion of arterials which will substantially increase line sources of pollution. EE.2. A.2 Encourage arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses. EE.3. A.3 Support, through political action, strong enforcement policies and ordinances in the regional pollution control agency. EE.4. A.4 Support, by political action and financial participation, the establishment of public transportation in the community as an alternative to dependence on individual vehicles. EE.5. A.5 Encourage programs supporting commute trip reductionlocal referral center for car pooling. Noise Pollution FF. General. Although no area of human activity is free of sound, the modern urban environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in the form of noise. The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where levels of noise are very high and sustained. Packet Page 266 of 394 Land Use 117 A less documented effect is general environmental stress from the physiological and psychological impacts of noise. Noise generally contributes to a loss of amenity and livability. The Edmonds Community is free, to a large extent, from the worst kinds of noise pollution and most residents believe that it is a quiet place to live. However, an environmental noise survey taken by the Building Department in 1974 indicates that there are some areas of concern. The mainNoise problems can come from general background sources, such as vehicular noise, or periodic point source problems, such as particularly motorcycles. Some point source problems, refrigeration equipment in stores near residential areas, have also occurred in the city. Impulsive, high-intensity noises which occur only periodically may also be irritating in quiet suburban neighborhoods. Examples are airplanes, electronically amplified music, sirens, etc. Certain noise problems can be alleviated more easily than others. The noise of vehicular traffic, particularly on arterial streets is difficult to control. Point sources can be more easily regulated by requiring noise muffling equipment. Enforcement of noise standards can be a problem because of the training and skill involved in taking noise measurements. Cost of enforcement may be excessive if standards are too stringent. The federal government has passed legislation to deal with major sources of noise in commerce which require national conformity of treatment. The State Department of Ecology has adopted Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards and Environmental Noise Levels guidelines. GG. Noise Pollution Goal A. Preserve the quiet residential environment of the city by limiting increases in noise and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with the following policies: GG.1. A.1 Studies should be made to determine the existing noise environment in order to provide baseline data for assessment of the environmental impact of changes or increases in noise. GG.2. A.2 The unique areas of quiet in the city should be identified and appropriate measures taken to preserve the quiet environment. GG.3. A.3 The city should update the existing noise standards to meet State Standards in modest stages in order to maintain flexibility and benefit from improvements in technology and experience. Increases in manpower or training to enforce standards should be cautiously made as experience is gained in enforcement. GG.4. A.4 Existing vehicular standards related to noise should be enforced to the greatest degree possible without excessive increases in manpower. GG.5. A.15 The city should partner with other jurisdictions in seeking to enforce appropriate noise standards within the city. cooperate with adjacent cities in sharing the costs of expensive noise equipment and training persons in the use of the equipment. Packet Page 267 of 394 118 Land Use GG.6. A.6 Future street and arterial projects should be assessed for noise impacts, and structures such as berms, fences and other devices utilized wherever possible to reduce the noise impacts. GG.7. A.27 Any ordinances adopted by the city should recognize the variety and quality of noise environments. Excessive regulations should not be imposed on areas of the city where higher noise levels are normal or necessary for essential activities and do not create environmental problems. GG.8. A.38 It is the policy of the city to minimize noise created by the railroad. Urban Growth Areas HH. General. The accompanying Urban Growth Areas map shows the City’s urban growth area, which encompasses unincorporated areas adjacent to the current city limits. In general, development within the urban growth area is of interest to the City because the area will be annexed to the City in the future and development in the area can be expected to have an impact on the demand for and delivery of City services. II. Urban Growth Area Goal A. Plan for the logical extension of services and development within the City’s urban growth area. A.1 Encourage the annexation of the City’s designated urban growth area into the city. II.1. A.2 To provide for orderly transitions, adopt comparable zoning and comprehensive plan designations for areas annexing into the City. II.2. A.3 Adopted plans and policies for the urban growth area shall be consistent and compatible with the general comprehensive plan goals and policies for the City. Packet Page 268 of 394 38 Land Use Land Capacity Background The Growth Mangement Act (GMA) provides the framework for planning at all levels in Washington State. Under the mandate of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.215), local governements are required to evaluate the density and capacity for Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Edmonds has been allocated population, housing, and employment growth targets through County Planning Policies. Population projections are based on the official 20-year population projections for Snohomish County from the Office of Financial Management and distributed as represented in Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Edmonds is considered a Larger City for regional growth strategy purposes. The Larger City designation is applied to cities that have a combined population and employment total over 22,500. Currently, eighteen cities are grouped in the Larger City designation. As a group, these cities are expected to accommodate 14% of the region’s projected population growth and 12% of the regional projected employment growth. The 2035 population target for Edmonds is 45,550 persons, up 14.4% from the 2011 population estimate of 39,800. To accommodate the targeted growth, Edmonds will require approximately 2,772 new housing units and 2,269 new jobs by 2035. Table 4 summarizes available GIS data on land supply in Edmonds as it existed in 2014. Developed acres include the entire parcel boundaries that contained development, not just the building footprint. The Edmonds Marsh accounted for all vacant acres listed under Parks & Open Space. Table 4 City of Edmonds Land Supply (Gross Acres), 2014 Acres % of Total Acres Acres % of Total Acres Residential Single-Family 3428.9 3272.3 56.9% 156.6 2.7% Multi-Family 203.9 181.0 3.1% 22.9 0.4% Retirement/Special Needs 16.9 16.9 0.3% Business Commercial 209.7 209.7 3.6% Industrial 32.2 32.2 0.6% Medical 40.8 40.8 0.7% Mixed Use 62.8 39.3 0.7% 23.5 0.4% Public Facilities Government 14.0 14.0 0.2% Schools 171.5 171.5 3.0% Parks & Open Space 416.7 393.3 6.8% 23.4 0.4% Religious 41.6 41.6 0.7% Streets/Parking/Driveways 1093.9 1093.9 19.0% Utilities 13.8 13.8 0.2% Total 5746.7 5520.3 96.1% 226.4 3.9% Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, Nov-2014 Developed Lands Vacant Lands Land Use Total Acres Packet Page 269 of 394 Land Use 39 Overall, nearly 4% of the City’s land was vacant in 2014. Approximately 79.3% of the vacant lands (226.4 acres) were designated for residential uses: 69.2% for single-family residences and 10.1% for multi-family residences. Of the remaining vacant lands, 10.4% was designated for mixed use and 10.3% represented the Edmonds Marsh. For a more in-depth study, the 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) developed build-out capacity estimates for vacant and under-developed parcels. Using a process developed by Snohomish County Tomorrow, the BLR was prepared in 2012 and adopted by the Snohomish County Council in June 2013. This report provided the city with the necessary information to complete a development capacity analysis. Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, capacity estimates were not calculated strictly on the amount of vacant buildable land, but also on increased densities and intensity of redevelopment within various areas of the city. Different methods of development were targeted to provide additional residential capacity. For example, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were one method of attempting to supplement capacity in single family neighborhoods, while encouraging mixed use development in commercial areas provided for additional capacity in areas already experiencing a higher level of activity. Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) were also targeted as a way of assuring maximum buildout of single-family-zoned areas while maintaining the character of the city. Following adoption of the 1995 comprehensive plan, the city embarked on an implementation program to achieve the goals identified in the plan. Many of these implementation measures are described in the Housing Element under the discussion of “strategies to promote affordable housing.” These measures were taken by the city to address issues related to both capacity and affordable housing. A key feature of Edmonds’ comprehensive plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the second floor and offices, shops or other commercial uses on the ground floor, or it could consist of a mixture of uses arranged in proximity to each other. Mixed use development is allowed in both of the city’s Activity Centers and Corridor development areas. In the 1995 comprehensive plan, mixed use development was to be allowed under all the alternatives considered, but would only be encouraged under the adopted “Designed Infill” alternative. The encouragement of mixed use development continues as a basic assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan. This basic approach is embodied in much of the development that has occurred in recent years. The importance of mixed use in the city’s land use pattern can be seen in Figure 9. Table 5: Summary of Buildable Lands Report SF MF Sr. Apts Total SF MF Sr. Apts Total SF MF Sr. Apts Total Buildable Lands Report 561 2,381 482 3,424 444 1,868 334 2,646 1,236 3,437 393 5,065 2,820 Source: Buildable Lands Report, 2012 Additional Housing Unit Capacity (before reductions) Additional Housing Unit Capacity (after reductions) Additional Population Capacity (after reductions) Additional Employment Capacity (after reductions) Packet Page 270 of 394 40 Land Use Source: City of Edmonds GIS, Nov-14 Population and Employment Capacity The 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) showed an Edmonds housing capacity of an additional 2,646 units through the year 2035, which would accommodate a total population of 45,550 residents. Since the BLR was finalized in 2012, some of the assumptions regarding buildable lands have changed. During the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, city staff considered how these changes affected capacity projections. For example, recent plans by the City to encourage mixed-use development in the Neighborhood Business areas of Westgate and Five Corners, plus the removal of restrictions on first and second floor residential development in CG and CG2 zones along the Highway 99 corridor, should provide the city with buildable lands capacity not considered in the 2012 BLR. In total, the City conservatively estimates these actions can increase the buildable lands capacity by approximately 850 net housing units applying the same methodology used in the Buildable Lands Report. With these adjustments, the City estimates a total capacity of 2,810 additional housing units by the year 2035. The projected need to accommodate the targeted population growth was 2,772 housing units as determined by the Countywide Planning Policies. The land capacity analysis, combined with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan, indicate that the 2035 targets for population and employment can be accommodated by the City. A summary of historical growth and the 2035 population and housing targets is presented in Figure 10 and Table 6. Packet Page 271 of 394 Land Use 41 The adopted 2035 employment target for Edmonds is 13,948 jobs which represents an increase of 2,269 above the 11,679 people employed in the City in 2011. The 2012 Buildable Lands analysis showed a potential increased capacity of 2,820 employees by 2035, which has been increased to 3,522 using the same analysis employed in reviewing the housing and population capacity discussed above. The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to maximize the economic and environmental benefits of that infrastructure. Given the extent to which future land use policies, regulations, demographics and market forces could affect land capacity estimates, however, it is important that development trends and remaining land supply within the city is regularly monitored in order to ensure the continued supply of adequate urban land throughout the 20-year GMA planning horizon. Implementation strategies should include development of a long-term program to monitor the city's progress towards goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the monitoring process, the city should work with the public, environmental and business leaders, interest groups, cities and other agencies to develop detailed monitoring criteria or "benchmarks" that could be used to measure progress and identify the need for corrective action. Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development. For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs – at least on a case- by-case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards; density bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review that lower financial development risks Packet Page 272 of 394 42 Land Use . 1 Gross Density = number of households per gross acre of land, city-wide. Note that this includes non-residential land, so the density per gross residential acre is significantly higher. 2000 2010 2035 (Plan Target) Population 39,515 39,709 45,550 Nominal Change -194 5,841 % Change -0.49%14.71% Annual % Change -0.16%0.55% Housing Units 17,508 18,378 21,168 Nominal Change -870 2,790 % Change -4.97%15.18% Avg HH Size 2.32 2.26 2.2 Avg Persons/Unit 2.26 2.16 2.15 Gross Density 1 3.1 3.16 3.64 Source: Census 2010, Buildable Lands Report 2012 Table 6 City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth Packet Page 273 of 394 Land Use 43 Activity Centers Introduction. The VISION 2040 regional plan establishes a growth management, transportation, environmental, and economic strategy for the Puget Sound region of urban growth areas (UGAs) framed by open space and linked by efficient, high capacity transit. The concepts developed in VISION 2040 are supported in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The approach proposed in Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers located within the community, the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Activity Centers in Edmonds are intended to address the following framework goals: · Pedestrian-oriented - Provide a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity. · Mixed-use - Encourage mixed-use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi-family and small-lot single family development. · Community character - Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes with views, and the waterfront. · Multimodal -Encourage transit service and access. · Balanced (re)development - Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals. · Concurrency -Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors. · Urban design - Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring a consistent and coherent character of development. · Adaptive reuse - Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. Packet Page 274 of 394 44 Land Use Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and these will have a profound impact on the future of the city’s downtown/waterfront area. Some of these ongoing activities include: · Increased concern about conflicts and safety issues related to the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic. · Transportation planning and the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which will move the existing ferry terminal at the base of Main Street to a new multimodal transportation center at Pt. Edwards. · Continued development of the city’s waterfront parks and walkways into an interconnected necklace of public spaces. · The South County Senior Center is undertaking strategic planning to look at its facilities, programs, and services. · Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in the Port of Edmonds’ plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art. Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high priority. · Arts plans continue to be implemented throughout the downtown, including such projects as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Artworks facility, and the continued expansion of downtown festivals and events. · Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through initiatives with the Edmonds Conference Center (formerly the Edmonds Floral Conference Center) and is working with the Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations. Downtown/Waterfront Vision. Taken together, the goals and policies for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center present a vision for Edmonds downtown/waterfront. By actively pursuing the ferry terminal’s relocation, the City has set upon an ambitious and exciting course. It is a course that holds promise for the downtown/waterfront, but it is one that will require concerted action by the entire community, including local, state and federal public officials, business groups and citizens. While the challenges presented in this effort are substantial, the possible rewards are even greater, for with its existing physical assets, future opportunities and the energy of its citizens, Edmonds has the potential to create one of the region’s most attractive and vital city centers. Components of the overall vision for the downtown/waterfront area include: · The Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal reduces negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while still providing a link between the Packet Page 275 of 394 Land Use 45 terminal and downtown Edmonds. The project provides the community with varied transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. · Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed-use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding lanes and SR-104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocates to Point Edwards. · The shoreline features a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, marina facilities, and supporting uses. · There is a more efficient transportation system featuring commuter and passenger trains, increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. Transportation conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic are resolved. · There is a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by both nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and that attracts visitors from throughout the region. · The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multi family development with new mixed-use development types. Single family neighborhoods are a part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of housing and character of downtown. · Opportunities for new development and redevelopment reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian-oriented character. Pedestrian-scale building height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. · Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. · Auto traffic is rerouted to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. · The City takes advantage of emerging technology and service innovations, such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle sharing, and WiFi or fiber communications systems. Downtown/Waterfront Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the downtown/waterfront area: Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues – and builds on – its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian-scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core. Packet Page 276 of 394 46 Land Use A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.4 Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. A.5 Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown/waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal B. Continue to plan for and implement improvements in the downtown/waterfront area that resolve safety conflicts while encouraging multi-modal transportation and access to the waterfront. B.1 Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. B.2 Plan for improvements to resolve transportation and safety conflicts in the downtown/waterfront area. B.3 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal C. Continue to plan for and implement the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center at Pt. Edwards – pursuing the design, permitting, land acquisition and development of the project. The completion of Edmonds Crossing will help address the competing needs of three regional facilities (transportation, parks and open space – including the Edmonds Marsh, and the Port of Edmonds) while providing opportunities for redevelopment and linkage between downtown Edmonds and its waterfront. C.1 Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. Packet Page 277 of 394 Land Use 47 C.2 Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds – such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities – while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. C.3 Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed- use development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. C.4 Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it’s economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian-scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. D.2 Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. D.3 Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown/waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way-finding devices, • Restrooms. Packet Page 278 of 394 48 Land Use D.4 Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. D.5 Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. D.6 Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. D.7 Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal G. Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g. convenience shopping, community activities). Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal H. Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically encouraging arts-related and arts-complementing uses. H.1 Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water-oriented destination. Multi-modal Transportation. Primary goals of the City’s Downtown Waterfront Plan include integrating the downtown core with the waterfront, improving pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and encouraging mixed-use development. Current conditions limit the city's ability to achieve these plan goals by making it difficult to move between the two areas, thereby minimizing the value of the shoreline as a public resource and amenity while adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment. A number of studies and public involvement projects have been completed to determine how to meet the variety of transportation needs that converge within Downtown Edmonds. Following an initial Packet Page 279 of 394 Land Use 49 1992 Ferry Relocation Feasibility Study and a visioning focus group convened by Edmonds’ Mayor in April 1992, the importance of the conflicting transportation needs culminated in the City of Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, and Community Transit signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in November 1993. The MOU called for the cooperative development of solutions to the conflicts between the City’s growth plans and ferry traffic in particular. In response to that agreement, preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of alternatives began in late 1993. In 1994, the Edmonds City Council held public hearings on the possibility of relocating the existing ferry terminal and incorporating a new terminal within a larger multimodal project. As a result of the hearings, the Council expressed support for a regional multimodal facility. The Council also approved the 1994 Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan which specifically supported the facility’s location at Pt. Edwards. Further environmental review and facility definition resulted in a recommendation that an alternative site (other than the existing Main Street location) should be developed as a multimodal facility serving ferry, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel needs. Several alternative sites for the relocated ferry terminal and the proposed multimodal center were evaluated as part of the early environmental screening process. During this screening process, federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies—including affected Tribes— provided input regarding issues that could impact selecting reasonable alternatives. Based on this extensive screening process, two alternatives were recommended for further analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement process. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on February 25, 1998, and the Final EIS was issued on November 10, 2004. Pt. Edwards is the preferred alternative for a multimodal terminal site. In addition to the transportation benefits of moving the existing ferry terminal, a number of redevelopment opportunities will result within the downtown waterfront area. These range from park and public access improvements to opportunities for significant redevelopment and connections between the waterfront and downtown. Packet Page 280 of 394 50 Land Use Figure 11. Integration of the remaining ferry pier structure into surrounding parks will be a key public benefit and opportunity. Packet Page 281 of 394 Land Use 51 Edmonds Crossing. Edmonds Crossing is a multimodal transportation center proposed to be constructed at Point Edwards, the former UNOCAL oil storage facility south of the Edmonds Marina. This multimodal transportation center will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel, including rail, ferry, bus, bicycle, walking and ridesharing. The project is supported by local, regional, and state plans, including the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation and VISION 2040 plan; Washington State Ferries’ (WSF) System Plan for 1999-2018; Snohomish County’s countywide Transportation Plan; the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan; and the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan. Edmonds Crossing will provide: · Intersection improvements at Pine Street and SR-104; · Interconnection of Amtrak service to Chicago and Vancouver, B.C., Sounder commuter rail service between Everett and Seattle, and other regional transportation modes; · Connections to the regional transit system with direct bus service to communities throughout the urban growth area; · Enhanced ability for people to rideshare, bicycle and walk to connect with travel opportunities at the multimodal center; · Improved safety and travel on Edmonds local streets and along SR-104 between the ferry terminal and I-5. · Linkage between Navy facilities at Everett and on the Kitsap peninsula. Packet Page 282 of 394 52 Land Use Figure 12. Edmonds Crossing “preferred alternative” from the 2004 FEIS. · Packet Page 283 of 394 Land Use 53 The project includes: · A ferry terminal; · A train station; · A transit center for bus and regional transit, as well as the opportunity for riders to connect to downtown businesses via a local circulator service; · The flexibility to operate the facility to respond to changing travel demands; · Safety features including grade separation of train traffic from other modes of travel, designated vehicle parking and holding areas, and improved passenger waiting areas. While the Edmonds Crossing project will directly benefit the transportation system, the project will also provide significant benefits to downtown Edmonds. Completion of the project provides an opportunity to redevelop the existing ferry terminal facilities and the related holding lanes in the downtown area. Providing a connection from the new multimodal terminal to downtown Edmonds will potentially bring more visibility and visitors to the downtown area. Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy. The vision and goals for Downtown Waterfront Packet Page 284 of 394 54 Land Use Activity Center are designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. To implement this vision, a series of policies and an implementation strategy are intended to guide future public and private actions. Implementation Strategy. Key issues tied to the viability and health of the downtown waterfront area include using the Edmonds Crossing project to help resolve transportation issues, linking downtown with the waterfront, and taking advantage of redevelopment opportunities arising from emerging trends and public investments. The largest single factor affecting the downtown waterfront area is the timing and construction of the Edmonds Crossing project. Because of this, a two-phased downtown waterfront redevelopment strategy is envisioned. The first phase includes actions taken before the existing ferry terminal is relocated to the Pt. Edwards site, and is intended to include actions taken to support ongoing redevelopment and arts-related improvements downtown. This phase will also set the framework for subsequent redevelopment after the terminal’s relocation. The second phase is aimed at comprehensive redevelopment to link the downtown with the waterfront, better utilize shoreline resources, increase economic viability and provide the setting for a broad range of community functions. Short Term Actions. Short term actions are those actions that can take place prior to construction of the Edmonds Crossing project. 1. Develop a short term plan and strategy to address transportation conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the waterfront area. 2. Plan for the Edmonds Crossing project at Pt. Edwards which includes relocation of the existing ferry terminal. Planning should also include reuse of the current ferry terminal and related holding area. 3. Improve the existing downtown rail station between Dayton and Main Streets in order to better accommodate inter-city passenger and commuter rail service, including provisions for bus and commuter traffic as well as pedestrian connections to the waterfront and downtown. During the short term planning period, evaluate the feasibility and benefits of retaining a commuter rail and transit presence downtown after the construction of Edmonds Crossing. 4. Plan for future joint public/private development of the area between SR-104 and the railroad tracks. Planning activities could potentially include infrastructure planning, property acquisition, parking management, development incentives and guidelines or modifications to land use regulations (such as zoning or master planning). Although Amtrak and commuter rail service will be included as a part of the Edmonds Crossing project, the City and transit service providers should examine whether a commuter rail stop can be retained between Dayton and Main Streets in order to provide improved service and stimulate potential redevelopment of the surrounding area. 5. Upgrade secondary downtown streets for pedestrians. Implement the city’s public urban design plan and street tree plan while expanding public amenities and streetscape improvements in areas where these do not already exist. These improvements are particularly needed along Main and Dayton Streets in the area between downtown and the waterfront in order to improve pedestrian connections between downtown and the waterfront area. Pedestrian improvements should be combined with traffic improvement projects where applicable. Packet Page 285 of 394 Land Use 55 6. Continue to promote shoreline management and public access to the city’s beaches, parks, and walkways. 7. Continue implementing a continuous shoreline walkway (boardwalk/esplanade) from Brackett’s Landing North to Point Edwards. Work with the Port of Edmonds to integrate recreation and marina functions into the long term plan. 8. Work with the Senior Center to plan for long term needs for the senior center facilities and programs. 9. Encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and redevelopment of downtown properties. Housing should be provided to serve a diverse community, including single family homes, multi family apartments and condominiums, housing as part of mixed use developments, and housing connected with live/work developments that could also encourage an arts- oriented community in the downtown area. A special focus for arts-supporting live/work arrangements could be in the corridor and nearby residential areas linking downtown with the Edmonds Center for the Arts. 10. Begin improvements to mitigate ferry terminal traffic (and other traffic) increases, as envisioned in the Edmonds Crossing project and the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. 11. Develop “gateways” at key entrances to the downtown area which enhance the identity and sense of place for downtown. Gateways should signal that visitors are entering downtown Edmonds, and should include elements such as public art, landscaping, signage and directional (“way-finding”) aids. Long Term Actions. Long term actions are those actions that can take place during or after construction of the Edmonds Crossing project. 1. Complete a multi modal transportation center at Point Edwards for: · Rail (inter-city and commuter) · Ferry · Park & Ride/Auto · Bus · Pedestrian and shuttle connections to other features and amenities. 2. Complete redevelopment of the Point Edwards site consistent with an overall master plan that provides for development compatible with the Edmonds Crossing project. 3. Coordinate circulation and public parking with Port development. 4. Continue to protect and enhance existing wetlands and continue to develop supporting non- intrusive interpretive trails and exhibits. 5. Continue development of a “necklace” of shoreline parks with improvements, focusing on missing links in the park and walkway system. Retain and expand existing parks, providing linkages whenever property acquisitions or easements become available for public use. 6. Encourage the development of centralized parking facilities as part of redevelopment projects. Under the right circumstances, these types of facilities can provide an efficient mechanism for consolidating expensive parking improvements while freeing up land for more intensive and desirable Packet Page 286 of 394 56 Land Use uses that support local housing, commercial, and pedestrian activities. Public/private partnerships should be explored when the opportunity arises, both in private and public projects (e.g. the commuter rail station downtown). Centralized parking facilities could be built as part of a master- planned mixed-use development. 7. Redevelop the existing ferry terminal site at the base of Main Street according to a master plan after the existing ferry terminal has been relocated to Point Edwards. This is a unique location, situated in the midst of a continuous park and beach setting, and provides opportunities for public/private partnerships. Ideas to be pursued include public “festival” entertainment or activity space, visitor moorage, park and public walkways, and other uses that would encourage this as to become a destination drawing people from south along the waterfront and eastward up into downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas. 8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed. 9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior center. These plans should reinforce the center’s place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to the walkways and parks along the shoreline. 10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various “districts” described for the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail-compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service – e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front façades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, Packet Page 287 of 394 Land Use 57 differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area. Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries being located at street level. Building design and height shall be compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian- scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees, landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the arts center should be encouraged – such as restaurants, cafés, galleries, live/work use arrangements, and B&Bs. Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required (i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between). Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian- friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from upper building levels. Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is Packet Page 288 of 394 58 Land Use an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water-oriented and water-dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development while providing incentives to encourage public view corridors. Roof and building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of its high sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular, landmark buildings of high quality design which take advantage of the visibility and physical environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront. Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public walkways and street fronts. Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut. Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto-oriented uses would be permitted in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind the commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Planned Residential-Office. Several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset Ave between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for small- scale development which provides for a mix of limited office and residential uses which provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single- family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and single-family character. Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown/waterfront area that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. These design objectives can be found in the Urban Design section of this document. Packet Page 289 of 394 Land Use 59 Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor Medical/Highway 99 Vision. The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Swedish/Edmonds medical center and Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high-intensity development corridor along Highway 99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian-friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park-like atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal A. Expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal B. Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting of a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and landscaped surroundings and inter-connected development. B.1 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. B.2 Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher-intensity mixed use development to nearby single family residential areas. B.3 Provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into the City of Edmonds. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal C. Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access patterns on local streets. C.1 Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density. However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center – and adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor – should still be provided in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit. Packet Page 290 of 394 60 Land Use Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal D. Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. D.1 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of links to future high-capacity transit that develops along corridors such as Highway 99. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal E.To provide a buffer between the high-intensity, high- rise commercial areas along SR 99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West. E.1 Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping and visual buffering, and pedestrian-scale streetscape design. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal F.To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mix of single family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with public facilities. F.1 In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential uses. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal G. To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school, the hospital, and transit services and facilities. G.1 Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access. Packet Page 291 of 394 Land Use 61 Highway 99 Corridor Vision. Highway 99 occupies a narrow strip of retail and commercial uses bounded by residential neighborhoods. Historically, the corridor has developed in a patchwork of uses, without a clear focus or direction. To improve planning for the future of the corridor, the City established a task force in 2003-2004, resulting in the Highway 99 Enhancement Report and a related economic analysis. During this process, local residents were contacted and asked to participate in two focus groups to identify current problems and future aspirations for the corridor. After this preliminary survey with the residents, the City invited business owners to participate in two charrette meetings to brainstorm ideas and evaluate possible ways to induce redevelopment in the area. After concepts were developed, Berk & Associates, an economics consultant, performed a market assessment of the enhancement strategy. The following diagram summarizes the general approach that resulted from this work: a series of focus areas providing identity and a clustering of activity along the corridor, providing opportunities for improved economic development while also improving linkages between the corridor and surrounding residential areas. Packet Page 292 of 394 62 Land Use Highway 99 Corridor Goals and Plan Policies. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve the framework goals for the Highway 99 Corridor. Highway 99 Corridor Goal A. Improve access and circulation. Access to businesses for both pedestrians and automobiles is difficult along major portions of the corridor. The inability of pedestrians to cross the street and for automobiles to make safe turns is a critical limitation on enhanced development of the corridor into a stronger economic area. Better pedestrian crossings are also needed to support transit use, especially as Highway 99 becomes the focus of future high capacity transit initiatives. A.1 Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas, while coordinating with high-capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor. A.2 Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization and other measures. A.3 Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. A.4 Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Highway 99 Corridor Goal B. The City should consider the different sections along the corridor and emphasize their unique opportunities rather than view the corridor as an undifferentiated continuum. Street improvements and, in some cases regulatory measures can encourage these efforts. Focus on specific nodes or segments within the corridor. Identity elements such as signage should indicate that the corridor is within the City of Edmonds, and show how connections can be made to downtown and other Edmonds locations. B.1 New development should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. B.2 The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area. Packet Page 293 of 394 Land Use 63 B.3 Provide a system of “focus areas” along the corridor which provide opportunities for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus areas identified in the “Highway 99 Corridor Vision” include the following: The “Residential Area Retail Center” concept allows for mixed use development while providing access and services to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from the Interurban trail. The idea of an “International District” is organized around the international flavor of development in the area combined with the concepts of visibility and internal connection. Access to the “District” is marked by specific gateways, and the many focal points for activity in the area (and the new development in between) are connected with a strong pedestrian corridor. Similar mixed use development, linked to surrounding neighborhoods, could occur in the “Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area.” In addition, this area has the potential to provide large sites suitable for larger commercial or mixed use development, such as hotels or large retail complexes. Internal circulation between sites is a key to development. Packet Page 294 of 394 64 Land Use Highway 99 Corridor Goal C. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. During the City’s Highway 99 Task Force work, residents noted that they needed a number of services that are not presently provided along the corridor. This can provide an opportunity that might be part of a larger business strategy. At the same time, new development should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. C.1 Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. C.2 New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially-zoned properties C.3 Provide adequate buffering between higher intensity uses and adjoining residential neighborhoods Highway 99 Corridor Goal D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur. D.1 Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. D.2 Within the Corridor, highrise nodes should be located to provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be: D.2.a Supported by adequate services and facilities; D.2.b Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques. D.2.c Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access. D.2.d Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. Packet Page 295 of 394 Land Use 65 Master Planned Development Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses, access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center, development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference: A. Edmonds-Woodway High School B. City Park C. Pine Ridge Park D. Southwest County Park In addition to the master plans listed above, master plans can also be implemented through zoning contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the plan. In these cases, the master plan must still be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies for the area. Residential Development General. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington State. Located on the shores of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town, quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for annexation and development is limited. Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens. Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves conditions for all citizens. When the City’s first comprehensive plan completed under the State Growth Management Act was adopted in 1995, the City adopted plan designations for single family areas that were based in large measure on historical development patterns, which often recognized development limitations due to environmentally sensitive areas (slopes, landslide hazards, streams, etc.). In 2004, the City refined its land use and zoning maps to more closely relate its large lot zoning to existing critical areas patterns. City staff analyzed the pattern of critical areas Packet Page 296 of 394 66 Land Use compared with land use designations, and applied the following logic to identify areas that could and could not be justified for continuing to be designated for large lot single family development. Land use and zoning designations were adjusted during the 2004/2005 plan update process to provide for this increased level of consistency. Residential Goal A. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. A.2 Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. A.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. A.4 Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. A.5 Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: A.5.a Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. A.5.b Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. A.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. A.5.d Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Residential Goal B. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: B.1 Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. B.1.a Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). Packet Page 297 of 394 Land Use 67 B.1.b Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple-family zoning. B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2.b.i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. B.2.b.iii The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. B.3 Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior. Commercial Land Use General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business, citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various requirements of the City's codes and policies. The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be Packet Page 298 of 394 68 Land Use supported. Commercial development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. Commercial Development Goals and Plan Policies. The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas (commercial, community commercial, neighborhood commercial, Westgate Corridor, Edmonds Way Corridor, and sexually oriented businesses), followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also meet. 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. All commercial development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe, convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be identified and reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites should be selected from parcels of land already identified in the comprehensive plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such use. A.2 Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses. A.3 The proliferation of strip commercial areas along Edmonds streets and highways and the development of commercial uses poorly related to surrounding land uses should be strongly discouraged. A.4 The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. A.5 All commercial developments should be carefully located and designed to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other related problems on surrounding land uses. A.6 Special consideration should be given to major land use decisions made in relation to downtown Edmonds. Commercial Development Goal B. Community Commercial areas are comprised of commercial development serving a dual purpose: services and shopping for both local residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial designation is to recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character. B.1 Permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both the local neighborhood and regional through-traffic. B.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate automobile traffic. Packet Page 299 of 394 Land Use 69 B.3 Provide for the pedestrian-scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity. B.4 Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. 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. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto-oriented commercial “strip malls” with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed-use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian-oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. C.1 Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. C.2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. C.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. C.4 Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. C.5 Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street-level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. C.6 Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus are strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are detailed below. C.6.a Five Corners C.6.a.i In the Five Corners neighborhood commercial area, development should be oriented to the street and respond to the unique character of the intersection, including a planned intersection improvement. Parking should be provided at the rear of development, where possible, or underground. C.6.a.ii Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of Packet Page 300 of 394 70 Land Use buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial space. C.6.a.iii At a minimum, commercial uses should be located on the ground level of development. Commercial or residential uses may occupy upper levels. C.6.a.iv. As a major intersection, streetscape and way-finding design should create an attractive “gateway” to the downtown and other neighborhoods. (Link to streetscape plan update.) Intersection and street design should accommodate and encourage pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood commercial area. C.6.b. Firdale Village C.6.a.i In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrian-oriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented toward the street in order to maximize visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures. C.6.a.ii Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial space. Commercial Development Goal D. The Westgate Corridor is generally located between the 100th Avenue W (9th Avenue S)/Edmonds Way intersection and where Edmonds Way turns north to enter the downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves as both a key transportation corridor and as an entry into the downtown. Long-established neighborhoods lie near both sides of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to recognize its multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale businesses while promoting compatible development that will not intrude into established neighborhoods. D.1 Development within the Westgate Corridor should be designed to recognize its role as part of an entryway into Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect should be a corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median. The landscaped median along SR-104 should remain as uninterrupted as possible in order to promote traffic flow and provide an entry effect. D.2 Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily intended to serve the local neighborhood while not contributing significantly to traffic congestion. D.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. Packet Page 301 of 394 Land Use 71 D.4 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. D.5 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Commercial Development Goal F. Sexually Oriented Businesses are regulated by specific licensing and operating provisions in the City Code. However, land use and zoning regulations are also required to mitigate and reduce the adverse secondary effects of these uses. These secondary effects are detailed in the findings adopted by Ordinance No. 3117 on October 15, 1996. As commercial uses, sexually oriented businesses should be limited to areas which can support the traffic and site requirements of these businesses while also assuring that their adverse secondary effects are mitigated. The following policies apply to sexually oriented businesses: F.1 Provide for potential commercial locations within the City for sexually oriented businesses which will provide at least a minimum separation and buffering necessary to protect public health and safety. Packet Page 302 of 394 72 Land Use F.2 Separate the location of sexually oriented businesses from uses that are incompatible with the secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. These incompatible uses include residential uses and uses such as public parks, public libraries, museums, public or private schools, community centers, and religious facilities. They also include bars and taverns. F.3 Adopt specific development regulations, such as lighting, parking and access provisions, that are designed to reduce or mitigate the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. F.4 Provide a mechanism to monitor, on an annual basis, the availability of potential sites for the location of sexually oriented businesses. Industrial Land Use General. Interestingly, industrial development played a major role in the early development of Edmonds. Sawmills, wharves, log ponds and other wood products industries lined the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the twentieth century. However, as time passed, Edmonds developed into a very attractive residential community and its once thriving lumber industry faded into oblivion. Today, Edmonds still retains much of its residential, small town charm despite the large amount of urban development which has occurred in and around the City during the outward expansion of the Seattle metropolitan area during the past twenty-five years. Industrial development in the more traditional sense has not occurred in Edmonds to a significant degree since its early Milltown days. Most new industry which has located in the community since the 1950's has been largely of light manufacturing or service industry nature. Some examples include furniture manufacturing, printing and publishing, electronic components assembly and health care services. Future industrial development should be carefully controlled in order to insure that it is compatible with the residential character of Edmonds. Small scale, business-park oriented light industries and service related industries should be given preference over more intensive large scale industries. Great care should be given to carefully siting and designing all new industrial development in order to fully minimize or eliminate its adverse off-site impacts. Industrial Land Use Goal A. A select number of industrial areas should be located and developed which are reasonably attractive and contribute to the economic growth and stability of Edmonds without degrading its natural or residential living environment, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Light industrial uses should be given preference over heavy industrial uses. A.2 The clustering of industrial uses in planned industrial parks should be required when the site is adequate. A.3 Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting residential areas, parks and other public-institutional land uses. Packet Page 303 of 394 Land Use 73 A.4 All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad lines). Open Space General. Open space is important in defining the character of the Edmonds area and should be preserved and enhanced for enjoyment by current and future generations. Open space provides many benefits for people and natural systems. Open Space Goal A. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the Edmonds environment, in accordance with the following policies. A.1 Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and appropriate areas designed as open space. A.1.a No city-owned property should be relinquished until all possible community uses have been explored. A.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: A.2.a Lands which have unique scientific or educational value. A.2.b Areas which have an abundance of wildlife, particularly where there are habitats of rare or endangered species. A.2.c Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the priority to highways classified as scenic. A.2.d Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as water sheds or natural drainage ways. A.2.e Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or industrial development. A.2.f Bogs and wetlands. A.2.g Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and adjacent uses. A.2.h Lands which would have unique suitability for future passive or active recreational use. A.2.i Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation. - A.3 Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and open space in areas of high density housing by requiring adequate setback space and separation between structures. Packet Page 304 of 394 74 Land Use Open Space Goal B. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies: B.1 Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs. B.2 Wherever possible, provide public access to public bodies of water. Soils and Topography General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental character of the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These can often be areas where natural drainage ways and stands of trees or habitat exist. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for certain kinds of development. Based on soil, slope, and geological analysis for the city, areas may be identified as potentially hazardous for specific types of development. Some areas which are limited for intensive development may be desirable for public recreation, open spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological communities, and protection of natural storm drainage systems. In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development, grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property. Soils and Topography Goal A. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD’s, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. A.2 Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of hillsides. Soils and Topography Goal B. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: B.1 Grading and Filling. B.1.a Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. B.1.b Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. B.1.c Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. Packet Page 305 of 394 Land Use 75 B.1.d Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. B.2. Building Construction. B.2.a Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. B.2.b Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. B.2.c Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. B.3. Erosion Control. B.3.a Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. B.3.b Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. B.3.c Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. Vegetation and Wildlife General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the native vegetation has become increasingly scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Natural vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and clean pollutants from the air. The beauty of the natural growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities. Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the quality of human life. City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms. Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and resident bird life. Wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and mammals. Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science (BAS). Packet Page 306 of 394 76 Land Use A.2 The removal of trees should be minimized, particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. A.3 Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. A.4 Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal B. The city should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats (woodlands, marshes, streams and beaches) of the city's wildlife in accordance with the following policies: B.1 Establish and maintain a variety of educational and recreational programs and activities for all age levels. B.2 Erect and maintain educational displays that identify some of the more common plants and animals and the ecology of major habitats, (e.g., sand, rock, piling and deepwater). B.3 Prevent the unnecessary disturbance of native species and organisms from beach and near-shore environments. B.4 Encourage landscaping and site improvement on city-owned property which recognizes value of habitat in overall site design. Air Pollution General. Air pollution is primarily a regional problem related to urbanization and meteorological conditions in the Puget Sound Basin. It is the result of activities in which most citizens participate. Air pollution can cause severe health effects and property damage under certain conditions. Air Pollution Goal A. Clean air is a right to all citizens of the City of Edmonds and should be protected and maintained in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Discourage expansion of arterials which will substantially increase line sources of pollution. A.2 Encourage arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses. A.3 Support, through political action, strong enforcement policies and ordinances in the regional pollution control agency. A.4 Support, by political action and financial participation, the establishment of public transportation in the community as an alternative to dependence on individual vehicles. Packet Page 307 of 394 Land Use 77 A.5 Encourage programs supporting commute trip reduction. Noise Pollution General. Although no area of human activity is free of sound, the modern urban environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in the form of noise. The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where levels of noise are very high and sustained. A less documented effect is general environmental stress from the physiological and psychological impacts of noise. Noise problems can come from general background sources, such as vehicular noise,or periodic point source problems, such as airplanes, electronically amplified music, sirens, etc. Certain noise problems can be alleviated more easily than others. The noise of vehicular traffic, particularly on arterial streets is difficult to control. Point sources can be more easily regulated by requiring noise muffling equipment. Enforcement of noise standards can be a problem because of the training and skill involved in taking noise measurements. Cost of enforcement may be excessive if standards are too stringent. Noise Pollution Goal A. Preserve the quiet residential environment of the city by limiting increases in noise and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with the following policies: A.1 The city should partner with other jurisdictions in seeking to enforce appropriate noise standards within the city. A.2 Any ordinances adopted by the city should recognize the variety and quality of noise environments. A.3 It is the policy of the city to minimize noise created by the railroad. Urban Growth Areas General. The accompanying Urban Growth Areas map shows the City’s urban growth area, which encompasses unincorporated areas adjacent to the current city limits. In general, development within the urban growth area is of interest to the City because the area will be annexed to the City in the future and development in the area can be expected to have an impact on the demand for and delivery of City services. Urban Growth Area Goal A. Plan for the logical extension of services and development within the City’s urban growth area. A.1 Encourage the annexation of the City’s designated urban growth area into the city. A.2 To provide for orderly transitions, adopt comparable zoning and comprehensive plan designations for areas annexing into the City. Packet Page 308 of 394 78 Land Use A.3 Adopted plans and policies for the urban growth area shall be consistent and compatible with the general comprehensive plan goals and policies for the City. Packet Page 309 of 394 AM-7439 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Action Information Subject Title Discussion of draft ordinances to consolidate and clarify animal regulations. Recommendation Review proposed ordinances (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). Previous Council Action N/A Narrative To better coordinate and consolidate the regulations regarding animals, two draft ordinances have been prepared to move portions of the zoning code that reference animals into Chapter 5.05 of the City Code and make other clarifying amendments. This will consolidate all animal regulations in a single place, which will help in the understanding, interpretation, and enforcement of the regulations. It also modifies animal noise language. The development of the draft ordinances has been coordinated between the Police Department, which includes an animal control program, and the Development Services Department. The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval on Nov. 12, 2014. After the Jan. 27 study session, a public hearing will be held on Feb. 3. Attachments Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance #A Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance #B Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 04:28 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/22/2015 04:55 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:30 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/22/2015 02:11 PM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 310 of 394 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) regards animal control; and WHEREAS, Section 5.30.130(A) of the Edmonds City Code regards public disturbance noises made by animals; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16.20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards Single Family Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards Multiple Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and WHEREAS, Chapter 17.35 of the Edmonds City Code regards animals in the context of general zoning regulations, including the keeping of animals in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that all Edmonds City Code sections regarding animals must be consolidated into one chapter, and has determined to repeal and recodify chapters to integrate all animal control provisions into Chapter 5.05; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined to repeal Section 5.30.130(A) of the Edmonds City Code and amend the animal noise provision of Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code to consolidate these chapters most efficiently; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code requires further specificity about what constitutes animal noises that can disturb neighbors to an unreasonable degree; and Packet Page 311 of 394 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the penalties for violations of Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code should be assessed in a tiered system, allowing for both civil infractions and criminal misdemeanors for repeated violations; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.30.130 of the ECC, entitled “Public disturbance noises,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 5.30.130 Public disturbance noises. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to cause or make, or for any person in possession of property knowingly to allow to originate from the property, unreasonable noise which disturbs another, and to refuse or intentionally fail to cease the unreasonable noise when ordered to do so by a police officer. Public disturbance noises shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following sounds or combinations of sounds: A. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any animal except that such sounds made in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt. BA. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle except such sounds that are made to warn of danger or that are specifically permitted or required by law. CB. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, race vehicle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine. DC. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the use of a musical instrument or instruments or other device capable of producing sound when struck by an object, of a whistle, or of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing, amplifying or reproducing sounds. Packet Page 312 of 394 ED. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the unamplified human voice or voices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. FE. Sounds made for any duration or frequency from the starting and/or running of the engine of a race vehicle. Section 2. Section 17.35.030 of the ECC, entitled “Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones,” is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 17.35.030 5.05.015 Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones. For each residential dwelling unit, regardless of the number of occupants residing within each dwelling unit, the following maximum number of domestic animals may be kept or owned within the dwelling unit upon the lot or premises associated with such dwelling unit: A. Household pets in numbers normally and commonly associated with the primary residential use of the dwelling unit. “Household pets” are animals commonly or normally kept or owned in association with a residential dwelling unit and which are generally kept or housed within the interior of the dwelling unit, including such animals as hamsters, mice, gerbils, guinea pigs, nonvenomous snakes, parakeets, canaries, finches, other songbirds, small nonvenomous reptiles and amphibians, and fish; B. Five or fewer domestic animals; C. One unweaned litter produced by any domestic animal permitted to be kept by this chapter; provided, that the total number of domestic animals kept shall not exceed that number provided in subsection B of this section more than 180 days following the birth of the litter; D. Up to three domestic female chickens on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single- family residential dwelling unit, except as otherwise grandfathered under current law. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and shall comply with all bulk requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens that may be kept on a single- family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more than one lot). Packet Page 313 of 394 Section 3. Section 5.05.115 of the ECC, entitled “Nuisances defined,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike- through): 5.05.115 Nuisances defined. A. All violations of this chapter section are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and are declared to be public nuisances. B. Nuisances are hereby defined to include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Any animal which chases, runs after or jumps at vehicles using public streets and alleys; 2. Any animal which habitually snaps, growls, snarls, jumps upon or otherwise threatens persons lawfully using the public sidewalks, streets, alleys or other public ways; 3. Any animal which has exhibited vicious propensities and which constitutes a danger to the safety of persons or property off his premises or lawfully on his premises; 4. A vicious animal or animal with vicious propensities which runs at large at any time, or such an animal off the owner’s premises not securely leashed on a line or confined and in the control of a person of suitable age and discretion to control or restrain such animal; 5. Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks or makes any noises in such a manner as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, taken to be continuous noise for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour, except that such sounds made indoors in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt; 6. Animals kept, harbored or maintained and known to have a contagious disease, unless under the treatment of a licensed veterinarian; 7. Animals running in packs; 8. Any dog running at large within the city; Packet Page 314 of 394 9. A female animal, whether licensed or not, while in season, accessible to other animals for purposes other than controlled and planned breeding; 10. Any animal which causes damage to property other than the property of the animal’s owner or person having physical charge and control of the animal; or 11. Any animal maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter. C. All nuisances under this chapter section shall be abated as provided in this chapter. In addition, any owner or person having charge of any animal who fails to abate such nuisance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail. subject to the following penalties: 1. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100. 2. Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250. 3. Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail. Section 4. Section 17.35.040 of the ECC, entitled “Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones,” is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 17.35.040 5.05.130.1 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones. A. The keeping of poultry or covered animals within a residential dwelling unit, or upon the premises connected therewith, shall be prohibited except as provided herein and in ECC 5.05.015(D) in this chapter. B. Up to three domestic female chickens may be kept on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single-family residential dwelling unit. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and subject to all requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens Packet Page 315 of 394 that may be kept on a single-family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more than one lot). BC. Covered animals are permitted to be kept on residential property zoned for single- family use (R zones) so long as they meet the requirements of ECC 5.05.130. C. Any poultry presently and permanently being kept upon the premises of a residential dwelling unit on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be permitted under the provisions of this chapter; provided, that such use is registered with the city of Edmonds development services department as described in subsection D of this section, and that the poultry is kept in strict compliance with the provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC. In the event that the keeping of poultry is discontinued on the premises for a continuous period of more than 90 days, the use shall be considered terminated and the continued keeping of poultry shall not be permitted. D. Commencing on February 5, 2001, a registration period of six months, ending August 6, 2001, at 5:00 p.m., is hereby established for the registration of the keeping of poultry currently occurring in single-family zones. Upon receipt of the registration, the city shall develop a schedule for the inspection of such poultry uses to determine compliance with Chapter 5.05 ECC. If the keeping of poultry is both registered and determined to be in compliance with Chapter 5.05 ECC, then the keeping of poultry shall be considered to be established as a legal nonconforming use. E. Legal nonconforming keeping of poultry shall receive a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the use; provided, however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal poultry use may be revoked and/or conditioned in accordance with the provisions of ECC 20.100.040. F. Failure to register the keeping of poultry with the city of Edmonds development services department within the time period established by the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such activity is illegal and subject to abatement. The keeper of such poultry may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such use by clear and convincing evidence that the use was permitted by Snohomish Packet Page 316 of 394 County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the date such use was initiated and established. G. The amendment of the definition of poultry was expanded by the passage of Ordinance No. 3655. In order to permit owners of poultry not previously regulated under the provisions of this code the same rights and privileges previously extended to other poultry owners, a new registration period is established commencing July 1, 2007, and extending for a period of six months, ending on December 3, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Commencing on that date and for the period established, the keepers of pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl may be kept as poultry as a nonconforming use if registered pursuant to the provisions of subsections (D) and (E) of this section. Section 6. Repealer. The following are hereby repealed: A. Section 17.35.010 of the ECC, entitled “Purpose.” B. Section 17.35.020 of the ECC, entitled “Definitions.” Section 7. Section 16.20.010 of the ECDC, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 16.20.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling units; 2. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 3. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 4. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; Packet Page 317 of 394 5. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Foster homes; 2. Home occupation, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The renting of rooms without separate kitchens to one or more persons; 4. The keeping of three or fewer domestic animals; 5. The keeping of horses, subject to the requirements of Chapter 5.05 ECC; 64. The following accessory buildings: a. Fallout shelters, b. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site, c. Private stables, d. Private parking for no more than five cars, e. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities; 75. Private residential docks or piers; 86. Family day-care in a residential home; 97. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(5) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. 108. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(1). C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); Packet Page 318 of 394 2. Local public facilities that are not planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Preschools; 2. Guest house; 3. Amateur radio transmitting antennas; 4. Accessory dwelling units; and 5. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. 6. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(2). Section 8. Section 16.30.010 of the ECDC, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state-licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; Packet Page 319 of 394 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single- family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multiple-family buildings, according to Chapter 5.05 ECC; 43. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 54. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. Packet Page 320 of 394 C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities; 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Page 321 of 394 Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING 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 Page 322 of 394 13 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, 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 CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 323 of 394 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.30 TO DEFINE “FREQUENT, REPETITIVE OR INTERMITTENTLY CONTINUOUS” IN SECTION 5.30.020, TO AMEND LANGUAGE REGARDING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN SECTION 5.30.140, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.30 IN SECTION 5.30.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 5.30.130 of the Edmonds City Code regards public disturbance noises without defining the terms “frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous” in the “Definitions” section of the Edmonds City Code, Section 5.30.020; and WHEREAS, the amendment to Section 5.30.140 is intended to clarify the City’s role in reviewing complaints received regarding noises that may constitute a nuisance, including a review by the City’s noise control administrator; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the penalties for violations of Chapter 5.30 of the Edmonds City Code as identified in Section 5.30.150 should be assessed in a tiered system, allowing for both civil infractions and criminal misdemeanors for repeated violations; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.30.020 of the ECC, entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings. All technical terminology used in this chapter and not defined specifically herein shall be interpreted in conformance with American National Standards Institute’s Specifications. A. “dB(A)” means the sound level measured in decibels, using the “A” weighting network on a sound level meter. Packet Page 324 of 394 B. “District” means the land use zone to which the provisions of this chapter are applied. For the purposes of this chapter: 1. “Residential district” includes all R classified zones and includes the Open Space zone. 2. “Business” zone means all zones designated BN or BC. 3. “Commercial” zones include all zones classified CW or CG. C. “Emergency work” means work required to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, work required to protect persons or property from an immediate exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities for providing or restoring immediately necessary utility services. D. “Equipment” means any stationary or portable device or any part thereof capable of generating sound. E. “Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds” mean sounds that are continuous for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent for a period totaling twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour. EF. “Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)” means the value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of a single vehicle. FG. “Motor vehicle” means any vehicle which is self-propelled, used primarily for transporting persons or property upon public highways. Aircraft, watercraft, and vehicles used exclusively on stationary rails or track are not motor vehicles as that term is used herein. It includes motorcycles unless distinction is made in the context of use. GH. “Motorcycle” means any motor vehicle having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground; except that farm tractors and vehicles powered by engines of less than five horsepower shall not be included. HI. “Muffler” means a device consisting of a series of chambers or other mechanical designs for the purpose of receiving exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine and effective in reducing sound resulting therefrom. Packet Page 325 of 394 IJ. “Noise control administrator” means the person designated by the mayor to enforce the provisions of this chapter. In addition to the noise control administrator, any police officer may enforce the provisions of this chapter. JK. “Person” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation or any other entity, public or private. KL. “Property boundary” means the surveyed line at ground surface which separates the real property owned, rented or leased by one or more persons from that owned, rented or leased by another or others, and its vertical extension. LM. “Receiving property” means the real property within which sound originating from outside the property is received. MN. “Race vehicle” means a motor vehicle not licensed for use on the public streets and/or which is used primarily for sanctioned or unsanctioned racing events. Race vehicle shall also include power boats used primarily for racing events. NO. “Sound level meter” means a sound level measuring device either type I or type II certified special use meters as defined by American National Standards Institute’s Specifications. Section 2. Section 5.30.140 of the ECC, entitled “Citizen complaints,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike- through): 5.30.140 Citizen complaints. Whenever it is stated in writing by three or more persons having separate residences in a neighborhood that any person is violating any of the provisions of this chapter, the noise control administrator or his/her designee shall review such complaints. After the noise control administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation has occurred, the administrator or his/her designee shall advise the person owner of the complaint and that such violation is a nuisance and must cease. Failure of any person to cease any violation of this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor subject to penalties as established in this chapter. Packet Page 326 of 394 Section 3. Section 5.30.150 of the ECC, entitled “Penalties,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 5.30.150 Penalties. A. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100. B. Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250. C. Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail. Section 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 327 of 394 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 Page 328 of 394 6 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, 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 5.30 TO DEFINE “FREQUENT, REPETITIVE OR INTERMITTENTLY CONTINUOUS” IN SECTION 5.30.020, TO AMEND LANGUAGE REGARDING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN SECTION 5.30.140, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.30 IN SECTION 5.30.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 329 of 394 AM-7430 11. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Presentation of a Sprint Master Use Agreement and Site Use Agreement for installation, operation and maintenance of their wireless equipment in the right of way. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at February 3, 2014 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Attached is a proposed Master Use Agreement (MUA) with Sprint Spectrum (Sprint) to allow installation, operation and maintenance of wireless communication equipment in the City’s right of way. This agreement is consistent in form with other MUA’s previously executed with AT&T, T-Mobile and Clearwire. The terms and conditions of the MUA were negotiated between staff and Michael Bradley, of Lighthouse Law Group. In addition, Mr. Bradley recommended raising the fee structure to the following rates to be more consistent with the marketplace: Old fee New fee 1. New structure/equip in ROW $5,000 $12,000 2. New structure/no equip in ROW $3,000 $11,000 3. Existing/replaced structure/equip in ROW $2,000 $10,000 4. Existing/replaced/no equip in ROW $2,000 $ 9,000 The MUA includes a boilerplate Site Use Agreement (Exhibit B) that will be executed for each site installed within the City. The purpose of this agreement is to formalize the date, location and fee of new installations. The Site Use Agreement is a new procedure that is being implemented with this MUA to document wireless communication sites installed within the City’s right of way. The second attachment is a Site Use Agreement for Sprint’s wireless facilities at 8730 Main St. The City issued Sprint a building permit to install an antenna on a Snohomish PUD pole on October 8, 2013. The Agreement addresses the back payment ($11,250) due for the time the facilities were installed to the finalization of the proposed MUA. Attachments Sprint Master Use Agreement Packet Page 330 of 394 Sprint Site Use Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 01/22/2015 05:02 PM Public Works Phil Williams 01/22/2015 09:10 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:29 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/23/2015 08:34 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:58 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/21/2015 10:24 AM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 331 of 394 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 2 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 3 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 4 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 5 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 6 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 7 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 8 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 9 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 0 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 1 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 2 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 3 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 4 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 5 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 6 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 7 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 8 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 9 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 0 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 1 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 2 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 3 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 4 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 5 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 6 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 7 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 8 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 9 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 0 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 1 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 2 o f 3 9 4 AM-7431 12. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/27/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Discussion and Potential Action Authorizing Mayor to sign proposed amendment(s) to the City of Edmonds and the Fire District 1's Fire and Emergency Services Interlocal Agreement. Recommendation There are multiple courses of action that Council can pursue to address the retroactive service invoice, however, for sake of brevity, three primary options are listed here: 1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment, and/or 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the City's proposed amendments, and/or 3) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment upon receiving a verbal commitment from Fire District 1’s Commissioner(s) to address the City’s proposed amendments within an established time period, such as within the next two months. Previous Council Action Narrative Background: The City of Edmonds (City) and Fire District 1 (FD1) entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, with services commencing on January 1, 2010. During the ensuing five years, FD1 settled two labor agreements: The first Labor Agreement with Local 1828 covered the period January 1, 2010 through December 31st, 2012, and The second Labor Agreement with Local 1828 covered the period January 1, 2013 through December 31st, 2014. The settlement of the first Labor Agreement resulted in an on-going increase in the City’s payment to the District under the ILA totaling $19,457 starting in 2012. The second labor agreement was settled in April of 2014 (even though the previous agreement expired December 31, 2012). On August 21, 2014 FD1 presented the City an invoice totaling $1,667,692 for a retroactive adjustment based on the District's recently settled labor contract. The amount of this invoice far exceeded what the City had budgeted (or anticipated) for the contract payment to the District for the years 2013 and 2014. Packet Page 363 of 394 Understanding the City’s Obligation to Pay the Retroactive Adjustment Invoice After receipt for the retroactive adjustment, the Mayor, City Attorney and Finance Director began a process of gathering information from FD1 to understand the invoice and the contractual basis for it, and to understand how such a large amount could be presented to the City without some advanced estimation as to how large the invoice was ultimately going to be. Why Was the Invoice so Large? When FD1 settled its 2010 through 2012 Labor Agreement with Local 1828, FD1 and Local 1828 agreed to limit the COLA increases to equal a one-month increase, or $19,457 due to economic constraints caused by the Great Recession. This $19,457 amount was added to the City’s 2012 costs. When FD1 settled its 2013 through 2014 Labor Agreement with Local 1828, the economic climate changed as did the Local 1828’s demand to increase its members’ compensation. The labor negotiations were extended as the two parties could not come to terms until their third part negotiator successfully found common ground that the two sides could agree on. This lengthy negotiation process lead to the belated “retroactive adjustment” invoice. Additionally, the current version of the City’s ILA with FD1 does not expressly require FD1 to render a binding estimate of labor costs (and therefore a reliable contract payment amount) when a labor agreement remains unsettled. We hope to change this going forward. While FD1 did not know exactly what the financial costs for the 2013 through 2014 Labor Agreement would be, it probably could have reasonably estimated those costs. At the time of the City’s 2013 and 2014 budget process, FD1 had not provided the City with a reasonable estimate of such costs. But it did pass on those new cost increases to the City once the 2013/2014 labor agreement was settled. How Does FD1 Justify Its Billing the City for the Retroactive Adjustment? When the third party negotiated settlement was implemented, FD1 had to increase the compensation for the employees of Local 1828 and also had to retroactively pay the compensation increase that was earned from January 2013 to the date of the signed the labor agreement in 2014. Section 4.4 of the ILA states the following and provides the contractual basis of encumbering the City to pay the retroactive adjustment: “Adjustment Date Not Met. If the labor agreement between District and Local 1828 has not been finalized by December 31 of the year prior to the upcoming contract for service year, the District Station Personnel costs and the District Indirect Costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but will be retroactive to January 1 and paid by the City within 30 days of execution of the labor agreement.” The ILA does not expressly address the situation we have here where a labor agreement has not been finalized until 16 months after expiration of the last labor agreement. The City Attorney has analyzed whether Section 4.4 and the ILA generally would allow the retroactive billing that the District seeks here. The City Council has been briefed on the merits of this matter in executive session. To protect the attorney-client privilege, we will not set forth the details of those discussions here. Nor do we summarize the City Attorney’s recommendation. Did the City Explore the Amount of Retroactive Adjustment? Yes. In fact the City requested a meeting with the Washington State Auditor’s Office, who had recently completed their audit of FD1’s financial statements, to discuss their audit results relating to the ILA between the City FD1. The meeting was scheduled and was attended by three Fire Commissioners, FD1 Administrative Staff, City Finance Director, one City Councilmember and several staff from the Auditor’s Office. Packet Page 364 of 394 At the meeting, the Auditor’s stated that during their examination of FD1, they purposefully tested FD1’s billings to the City, specifically examining the labor costs included in the billing. The Auditors concluded that FD1’s billing to the City was in compliance with the requirements of the ILA and that the costs were substantiated. The Administration is of the opinion that the District did actually incur the costs for which the City is being invoiced in rendering services to the City under the ILA. What has Fire District 1 Offered to the City? FD1 has offered the City an amendment to the ILA that effectuates a two year payment option (see attachment titled “Fire District One Proposed Amendment to ILA”) billed over eight quarterly installments to pay the retroactive adjustment. Additionally, FD1 issued a one-time adjustment lowering the retroactive invoice by $63,631.19, bringing the total retroactive invoice to $1,604,060.81 to account for certain services that were not rendered. How can the City Prevent a Recurrence of a Future “Large” Retroactive Adjustment? The City expected an increase in our FD1 service costs, however, we did not expected the increase to be so large. The unexpected size of the 2013/2014 retroactive adjustment had a direct impact on development of the City’s 2015 Budget as the Mayor expressed in his 2015 Budget Message. In an attempt to address the prevention of a recurrence of receiving a future unexpected retroactive adjustments, the Mayor, City Attorney and Finance Director drafted and submitted to FD1 the attached “City Proposed Amendments to the ILA.” The Fire District has refused to pursue a process that would have incorporated the City’s proposed amendments into the ILA until after the City either pays the full amount owed or approves the District’s payment plan amendment. See the attached letter from FD1, titled “Fire District Response to Proposed Amendments.” Attachments Fire District One Proposed Amendment to ILA City Proposed Amendment to ILA Fire District Response to Proposed Amendments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 12:43 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 12:52 PM Mayor Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 01:17 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 01:18 PM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 01/21/2015 10:59 AM Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015 Packet Page 365 of 394 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PAGE 1 OF 4 SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington municipal corporation (the “District”) and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the “City”), is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services. WHEREAS, the District and the City are parties to an Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (“Agreement”) dated November 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, paragraph 4.4 of the Agreement provides for the City to make a retroactive payment to the District if the District does not settle its labor agreement with IAFF Local 1828 by December 31; and WHEREAS, in 2014, the District settled its collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Local 1828 (the “Union”) covering the period of January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014, the District issued an invoice (“Retro Pay Invoice”) to the City in the amount of $1,667,692 for the 2013 and 2014 retroactive adjustment due to settlement of the CBA; and WHEREAS, in light of certain discussions between the parties on several issues, including the level of fire marshal and public education services provided by the District during 2013 and 2014, the parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The District hereby issues a one- time adjustment to the Retro Pay Invoice in the amount of $63,631.19. A revised invoice in the amount of $1,604,060.81, attached hereto as Exhibit A, represents the revised retroactive payment obligation for the City under Article 4.3 and 4.4 of the Agreement (the “Retro Obligation”). 2. The outstanding balance of the Retro Pay Obligation shall accrue interest at the same rate as interest received on investments in the Local Government Investment Pool (“LGIP”). The interest rate shall be adjusted annually on January 1. 3. The principal amount of the Retro Pay Obligation shall be paid in eight equal quarterly installments during years 2015 and 2016. The final payment shall also include an additional amount to cover the accrued interest. Packet Page 366 of 394 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 4. The City may prepay any portion of the Retro Pay Obligation at any time, without penalty. All such payments shall first be applied to interest and then to the unpaid principal balance. 5. Commencing in February, 2015, the parties agree to meet and discuss options for assessing the Agreement and to address potential amendments to the Agreement that may be desired by each party. 6. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. DATED this _____ day of ____________, 2015. SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 By: David Chan, Commissioner By: Jim Kenny, Commissioner By: Jim McGaughey, Commissioner By: Bob Meador, Commissioner By: Richard Schrock, Commissioner DATED this _____ day of ____________, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Attest: Mayor City Clerk Packet Page 367 of 394 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 Approved as to form: By: City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me David Chan, Jim Kenny, Jim McGaughey, Bob Meador, and Richard Schrock to me known to be the Commissioners of SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 and on oath verified that they were authorized to execute this document on behalf of the District for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this _______ day of ____________, 2015. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me _________________, _________________, and ________________, to me known to be the Mayor, City Clerk, and City Attorney respectively, of the CITY OF EDMONDS and on oath verified that they were authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this _______ day of ____________, 2015. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: Packet Page 368 of 394 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 4 \\APP\SHARED_DOCS\FIRE DISTRICTS\SNOHOMISH FD 1\CITY CONTRACTUAL CONSOLIDATIONS\EDMONDS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT\FINAL SIGNED EDMONDS ILA\3RD AMENDMENT\THIRD AMENDMENT TO ILU - RETRO PAY.DOCX Packet Page 369 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 1 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO.1, a Washington municipal corporation (the "District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City") is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS). WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most elected officials in Southwest Snohomish County; WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the City and the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and District and their stakeholders; and WHEREAS, the City and District have a long-term relationship for providing Mutual and Automatic Aid toward the delivery of fire and emergency medical service; and WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with the District to provide fire and emergency medical services to the City and the District desires to so provide these services; and WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the District and the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the public in the most efficient manner possible. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows: Packet Page 370 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 2 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Services Provided. The District shall provide all services necessary for fire suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and disaster response to a service area covering the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds as are provided by the City of Edmonds. In addition, the District shall provide support services including, but not limited to, fire marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public information, and fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal and risk management pertaining to the operations and delivery of fire department services. 1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District will provide training and education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in accordance with State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District will offer professional development and educational and training opportunities for unrepresented and civilian employees. 1.3 City Fire Chief. The District's Fire Chief shall be designated the City Fire Chief for purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code. 1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate an individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel to support the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and partially funded by the City (See Exhibit A). 2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICES/STAFFING 2.1 Battalion Chief. The City Battalion Chief unit shall be staffed with a minimum of one (1) Battalion Chief twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. 2.2 Fire Station Staffing. Fire Station 16 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station 17 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain, and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station 20 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. 2.3 Paramedic Unit. The City Medic Unit will be staffed with a minimum of two (2) firefighter/paramedics as currently provided. Packet Page 371 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 3 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 2.4 Level of Service. The District shall provide the same level of service as currently provided by the City, which is consistent with the City response objectives per the City's Chapter 35.103 RCW Fire Department Compliance Plan (previously SHB Compliance Plan 1756) approved by the Edmonds City Council on November 28, 2006. If these response objectives are amended to provide an increased level of service, the District will make reasonable efforts to meet them, provided that funding is adequate. 2.5 Annual Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance with the City's RCW 35.103 Fire Department Compliance Plan. 2.6 Staffing Exceptions. Exceptions to on duty staffing levels may occur in unusual circumstances such as where there is a significant emergency event(s) in the District, the City, or other areas which are under a contract for service or auto/mutual aid agreement with the District. Unusual circumstances and significant emergencies that affect personnel, equipment, infrastructure and/or may include, but are not limited to, natural or man-made disasters, a significant incident, or series of escalating incidents significant to a specific location, multiple locations, and/or with area or region-wide impact. 2.7 Criteria-Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and District that the dispatch of units during emergencies is determined by criteria- based dispatch protocols of the dispatch centers, and automatic and/or mutual aid agreements. Nothing herein shall require the District to respond first within the City as opposed to other areas served by the District. The City and District recognize that responses to emergencies shall be determined by the District based upon dispatch protocols, the District's operational judgment, and without regard to where the emergencies occur. 2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Agreement, service level changes may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party. Additionally, either party may desire to change the service level, including but not limited to, those services identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2 Standards for Services/Staffing. When a service level change is mandated by law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council as the City's response objectives as required by RCW 35.103, or is mutually agreed to by the parties, the City and the District will renegotiate the contract payment at the request of either party. Provided that before renegotiation, the District must notify the Union, IAFF 1997, of the alleged change requiring a change in the level of service and thereafter negotiate with the Union the impact/affects of such change on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit personnel. 2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should consistently exceed the current level of City services, the District Fire Chief and City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address the cause and potential remedies. In no circumstance will a meet and confer process be prejudicial to the Packet Page 372 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 4 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 rights of the parties under this agreement, or upon the Union, IAFF 1997, to bargain any and all impacts/effects relating to any remedy incident to the increased response time. 3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS 3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of existing City fire stations. The City shall provide three City fire stations or replacement fire stations for use by the District during the term of this Agreement and as described in Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B shall control with respect to fire stations and fixtures contained therein. 3.2 Fire Station Furnishings. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase of fire station furnishings that are not built-in or fixed, and consumable and disposable supplies within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this Agreement. The District shall accept ownership of furnishings that are not built-in or fixed in "as is" condition but only if the individual furnishing or ensemble are in a condition acceptable to the District. 3.3 Purchase Price. The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed was determined by applying a 15-year depreciation schedule to the estimated purchase prices of individual furnishings or ensembles. The purchase price for the estimated consumable and disposable supplies that will be in the fire stations on the Commencement Date of this Agreement is based on the acquisition price. The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed with appropriate depreciation applied, and the price of consumable and disposable supplies is identified in Exhibit J. 4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS 4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall annually pay the District a sum referred to as the Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The amount of the Contract Payment shall be determined annually according to the formula set forth in Exhibit C. The Contract Payment shall be paid in equal quarterly installments by January 15, April 15, July 15 and September 15. The District shall provide an invoice for each quarterly payment no later than 15 days prior to the due date of the quarterly installment. Failure to pay quarterly installments in a timely manner shall be considered a material breach as defined in the Definitions [1]section of this Agreement. 4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each [2]year no later than September 1 . [reserved] Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each year no later than September 1 . 4.3 Annual Percent Increase Adjustment to Contract Payment Based on Labor Costs. Annually, no later than September 1, The the District shall submit to the Packet Page 373 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 5 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 City the applicable input values for the Exhibit C formula, the Supporting Documentation for those values, and the resulting Contract Payment for the ensuing calendar year. an annual revision to Exhibit C of this Agreement, which shall identify the Contract Payment for the ensuing year(s). The cost of City Station Personnel identified inused as an input figure for Exhibit C[3] shall be adjusted as changes occurannually by the percentage increase in labor costs resulting from the negotiated labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997; provided that the personnel cost shall increase from one labor agreement to the next no more than the greater of (i) the median percentage increase in compensation of comparable Comparable fire Fire agenciesAgencies, or (ii) the increase in the Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area for the 12-month period ending June 30. In the event that the labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997 goes to interest arbitration, then the increase shall equal, or (iii) the percentage increase in compensation awarded by an the interest arbitrator. The phrase "comparable Comparable fire Fire agenciesAgencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the Employer District and Union IAFF Local 1997 through the collective bargaining process or the comparables accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration proceeding. “Supporting Documentation” shall include the source of the annual percentage increase (e.g. CPI or Comparable Fire Agencies) and the documentation that supports that percentage (e.g. labor agreements from other agreements to justify the comparability finding; documentation to support the District’s calculation of average salary figures). 4.4 Adjustment Date Not Met. If the labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997 has not been finalized by December August 31 of the year prior to the upcoming contract for service year, the District’s submission to the City on September 1 shall include, instead of the actual Contract Payment, a reasonably probable range for percentage increase to the cost of City Station Personnel and a reasonably probable range for the next year’s Contract Payment. These ranges shall be developed by an independent consultant who specializes in representing management in labor negotiations. The providing of this range is intended to allow the City to budget for a reasonable worst-case resolution of the labor negotiations. If the labor agreement still has not been finalized by December 31 then the District Station Personnel costs and the District Indirect Costs shall be invoiced to the City at an estimated amount that is within the range provided by the District on September 1 and the City will make quarterly payments based upon this estimated Contract Payment until the labor agreement is settled. The estimated Contract Payment will be converted to an actual Contract Payment and adjusted, if different from the estimate, upon execution of the labor agreement but will be retroactive to January 1. If the City’s payments under the estimated Contract Payment exceeded what would be owed under the actual Contract Payment, the District shall refund the excess to the City within 30 days of execution of the labor agreement. If the City’s payments under the estimated Contract Payment fell short of what would be owed under the actual Contract Packet Page 374 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 6 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 Payment, and paid by the City shall pay the difference to the District within 30 days of execution [4]of the labor agreement. Under no circumstances shall the actual Contract Payment exceed the reasonably probable range that the District provided the City on September 1. 4.5 Annual Indirect Operating Cost Adjustments. The District shall adjust the Contract Payment costs consisting of Indirect Operating Costs determined by the following: • Overhead which shall be 10 percent of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost; • Station equipment/maintenance/operation, which shall be 10 percent of the City Station Personnel cost; • Fire Marshal allocation at 75 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position, and Fire Inspector at 100 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and • Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement Schedule -- City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D. The District Indirect Costs identified in Exhibit C shall then be adjusted based upon the specified percentage of the increased cost of City Station Personnel. The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Costs shall be the Contract Payment for the ensuing year. 4.6 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area does contain property within the boundaries of the District; however, this provision shall not apply to the annexation of "islands" as referenced in RCW 35.13.182. Should the City seek to annex portions of the District, the District will not oppose the annexation. In the event the City annexes portions of the District, the Contract Payment shall be increased and shall be calculated by applying the then current District levy rate and emergency medical services levy rate to the annexed property. The increased amount shall be added to the Contract Payment as a base for calculations in future years. 4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is a material and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing services under this Agreement or an increase in such costs as a result of a legislative or policy decision that is exempt from the dispute resolution [5]provisions of Sections 18.1 and 18.2, then at the request of either party, the City and District shall renegotiate this Agreement and the Contract Payment to fully compensate the District for actual costs incurred[6] according to the methodology in Exhibit C. In the event that the City and District are unable to successfully renegotiate this Agreement through good faith negotiations, then the Dispute Resolution provision of this Agreement shall apply. 4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District understands and acknowledges that the City presently charges fees for basic life support and advanced life support transports Packet Page 375 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 7 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 occurring within the City. As the EMS service provider, the District shall receive and collect all Transport Fees in accordance with District policy for transports that originate within the City limits. The District shall remit these amounts, less an administration fee not to exceed the actual cost of collection, to the City according to the quarterly schedule in Section 4.1. The District shall be responsible for, and agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, all necessary or requested documentation and/or reports to the City. 4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates for increased service by the District without fully compensating the District for actual costs incurred. 4.10 City’s Involvement in Labor Negotiations. The City shall be entitled to appoint no more than two representatives to attend bargaining sessions between the District and the IAFF Local 1828[7]. The City’s representative shall not be entitled to vote on the approval of a contract. Additionally, the District’s independent consultant in charge of the negotiations shall be made available to provide the City Council with an oral report on the status of the negotiations on at least a quarterly basis. The cost of the consultant attending the City Council meetings shall be paid by the City. 5. CITY EMPLOYEES 5.1 All City Employees Become District Employees. The District shall become the employer of all City Fire Department employees, including administrative and unrepresented uniformed, IAFF members, SEIU members, and civilian employees of the City Fire Department on the Commencement Date of this Agreement between the City and the District. The City and District recognize that during the term of the Interlocal Agreement, the uniformed City Fire Department employees will be integrated into Local 1997 of the IAFF. Labor-represented employees will continue in their current positions and job assignments as recognized by the District, or as agreed through collective bargaining prior to the implementation of this Agreement. Administrative uniformed employees may be reassigned to job positions that meet the needs of consolidating the two organizations. Any civilian City Fire Department employee who is reassigned to a new position shall be entitled to wages and benefits consistent with, or greater than, the current wages and benefits provided by the City for such employee's former position. City personnel shall receive the District's compensation levels and benefits as of the Commencement Date of this Agreement. 5.2 Seniority and Rank. Any IAFF member of the City Fire Department shall assume employment with the District with complete seniority and rank intact. No additional probationary periods or testing shall be required of any current IAFF member under the Employees of Merged or Contracted Organization's article of the Local 1997 Collective Labor Agreement. For purposes of seniority, the "hire Packet Page 376 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 8 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 date" of a City Fire Department employee will be the earliest such employee's hire date(s) with Fire District 1, Medic 7, or the City of Edmonds. 5.3 Transfer of Sick and Vacation Leave. Sick and vacation leave of City employees shall be transferred and maintained as attached in Exhibit E. The City shall pay to the District the current value of accrued vacation leave banks as of the date of the transfer. The City shall also pay the cash-out value of City sick leave banks in accordance with applicable Union contract or City policy. "Cash-out value" shall be based on termination by layoff due to lack of work by the City as of the date of the transfer. The District and City may agree to credit this obligation against monies owed by the District under this Agreement. These payments are intended to close out the City's obligations with respect to transferred, accrued leave banks and the provisions of 5.9 shall not apply to unanticipated costs or increases associated with the transferred leave banks such as, but not limited to, increases attributable to changes in statutory or case law relating to the payment of such banks, their impact on overtime requirements or changes in pension law, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if a transferred employee retires within two (2) years of the date of the transfer and the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) treats any portion of the leave bank payouts as excess compensation, the City shall be liable for its proportionate share of such excess compensation cost as determined by DRS. "Proportionate share" shall be determined based on the last wage paid by the City and the leave payout cap in effect as of the date of the transfer and the excess compensation assessment attributable thereto. 5.4 Layoff Language. For the provisions of layoffs or reduction in force, there shall be three established Seniority Lists attached as Exhibit F. • Blended Seniority List consisting of the former members of IAFF Local 1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) and the members of IAFF Local 1997 (Snohomish County Fire District 1 Firefighters). • Non-Blended Seniority List of IAFF local 1997 (District Firefighters) prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City. • Non-Blended Seniority list of IAFF Local 1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) prior to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City. 5.4.1 Layoff Within First 60 Months of Contract. If a reduction in force becomes necessary within the first 60 months of this Agreement, the reductions in force shall be initiated utilizing the Blended Seniority List from the most senior to the least senior giving each member the first right of refusal. In the event that the said reduction in force is not accomplished through the Blended Seniority List, the reduction in force shall be incurred upon the least senior members of the jurisdiction causing the reduction in force. The reduction will be based on the Seniority Lists established prior to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City. Packet Page 377 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 9 of 23 January 1, 2015 January 1, 2015 5.4.2 New Employees. Employees hired after the date of this Interlocal Agreement will be placed on the bottom of the Blended List and will be first subject to layoff. 5.5 Promotional Language and Probationary Period. The parties agree that two of three Company Officer promotions required to convert the three-platoon City work schedule to the District four-platoon work schedule will be made from a promotional list established by the Edmonds Civil Service Commission and consist solely of eligible pre-Commencement Date City employees. 5.6 Company Officer Promotion Process. The parties agree that the City Company Officer promotion process shall occur prior to the Commencement Date of the Agreement. 5.7 Probation Process for Newly Promoted Company Officers. The parties agree that newly-promoted City Company Officers transferring employment to the District on the Commencement Date shall serve the probationary period of the IAFF 1997 collective labor agreement and District policy, procedures, and performance standards for Company Officers. 5.8 Impact of Agreement. Each party has undertaken to collectively bargain the impact of this Agreement upon the respective labor unions which represent each party's employees. The City and District further acknowledge that the integration of City employees into the District's organizational structure has been in conjunction with the respective labor unions which represent each party's employees, and that the City and District will have reached agreement with existing labor unions, and with each other, that the seniority rights of City Personnel will remain intact and will transfer to their employment with the District. 5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel, which arise out of, or relate to, the time prior to the date that such City personnel became employees of the District; provided, however, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the Interlocal Agreement. 6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES) 6.1 Purchase Rolling Stock. The District shall purchase the City Fire Department's rolling stock (apparatus and vehicles). The District shall accept title and ownership of such rolling stock in "as is" condition but only if each individual unit is in a condition reasonably acceptable to the District. 6.2 Transfer of Title. The City and District shall cooperate and execute such documents which are necessary to accomplish the transfer of title. Packet Page 378 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 10 of 23 January 1, 2015 6.3 Rolling Stock Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase of City rolling stock within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this Agreement, specifically for the ladder (1), engines (3), medic unit (1), aid units (4), utility (1), the 1938 Ford fire engine (1), and six vehicles. 6.4 Purchase Price. The purchase price of each piece of rolling stock shall be the retail price determined by Fire Trucks Plus, Inc.; or by the Kelly Blue Book; the acquisition cost of the 1938 Ford Fire Engine; plus the delivered, set-up and lettered cost of two 2009 Ford E-450s Aid Units manufactured by Braun and identified in Exhibit G. 6.5 Rolling Stock Records. The sale of rolling stock includes all service and maintenance, records, and shop manuals for each purchased unit. 6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current information regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule attached in Exhibit D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase new rolling stock or otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City. 6.7 Public Safety Boat. The Public Safety Boat, acquired with a Department of Homeland Security grant as a county-wide asset and known as Marine 16, remains the property of the City. Use by the District of Marine 16 for training and emergencies as a county-wide asset is described in Exhibit H. 7. EQUIPMENT 7.1 Purchase Equipment. The District shall purchase City Fire Department equipment identified in Exhibit I. Equipment is divided into two categories -(1) that on the Fire Department Attractive Asset List, and (2) that equipment onboard rolling stock. There is no duplication between the two lists. The District shall accept ownership of equipment in "as-is" condition but only if each individual piece of equipment or ensemble is in reasonably acceptable condition as determined solely by the District. 7.2 Equipment Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase of City equipment within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this Agreement. 7.3 Purchase Price. (1) The purchase price for items on the Asset List was determined by applying a straight-line depreciation to the purchase price, invoice, and/or estimated present value for each individual item. Straight-line depreciation is calculated by taking the value of the asset and dividing it by the expected life span, then multiplying the expected life span by the age of the asset (value / years = yearly depreciation x age = depreciation amount). (2) The price for equipment on-board rolling stock was determined by applying five years of depreciation based on a ten-year average replacement schedule to the purchase Packet Page 379 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 11 of 23 January 1, 2015 price of individual items using fire service reference materials including Galls, Life Assist (EMS hard and soft gear), PMI (technical rescue equipment), and Heiman Fire Equipment. This equates to 50 percent depreciation to all equipment. The purchase price and depreciation of each piece of equipment or ensemble is identified in Exhibit I. 7.4 Equipment Records and Warranties. The sale of equipment includes all service and maintenance records, and shop manuals. Wherever permitted under the terms of a contract to purchase a vehicle or equipment transferred to the District or a warranty relating thereto, the City hereby transfers and assigns its interest under such warranties to the District. In the event that only the City may exercise the warranty, the City will cooperate with and use its best efforts to enforce any warranty regarding equipment provided to the District. 8. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING 8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Agreement, the District Fire Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly reports concerning the provision of services under this Agreement. The format and topics of the reports shall be agreed upon by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor. Additionally, two District Board Commissioner members and two City Council members, along with the District Fire Chief and the Mayor, shall meet at least once per calendar year, on or before April 1, for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this Agreement. The District Fire Chief and the Mayor shall present a joint annual report to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31. 8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section 8.1 above, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners shall meet prior to April 1 of each calendar year at a properly noticed place and time to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Agreement. At this meeting, the District Chief shall present various options for providing services to the City more efficiently and/or more effectively under this agreement. It is expected that the District will have conducted a self-evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness prior to this joint annual meeting to ensure that the Chief is prepared to offer meaningful options for the City to consider. 8.3 Representation on Intergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the City on intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this Agreement as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City reserves the right to represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the City and the District are not mutual or whenever any matter relates to the appropriation of or expenditure of City funds beyond the terms of this Agreement. 9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS Packet Page 380 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 12 of 23 January 1, 2015 9.1 ESCA. SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships with other entities or agencies including the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) for all City; Snohomish County Communications Center (SNOCOM) for Fire, Police, and Public Works; and Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) for Fire and Police. The City shall maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or agencies and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its behalf. At the discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on behalf of the City on various committees, boards and/or commissions as requested, as appropriate, and/or as agreed to by mutual agreement of the parties. 9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The City and District currently have individual responsibilities and contractual obligations under their respective agreements with other fire agencies. The District shall assume the City's contractual responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid. At such time as these agreements are renegotiated and re-executed, the District will represent the City's interests and shall be signatory to the agreements on behalf of the City. 9.3 Full Information as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to coordinate their individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that the services under this Agreement will be provided in an efficient and cost effective manner. The City and District agree to keep each other fully informed and advised as to any changes in their respective relationships with those entities or agencies, whether or not those changes impact the City and/or the District obligations under this Agreement. Notice of any change in the relationship or obligations shall be provided to the other party in writing in a timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed changes in relationships or obligations. 9.4 Dispute Resolution. In the event that any dispute between the City and District cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then the dispute resolution provision of this Agreement shall apply. 10. TERM OF AGREEMENT 10.1 20-Year Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon its execution by the City and District. The Commencement Date of this Agreement shall be January 1, 2010. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the Commencement Date, until December 31, 2030[8], unless terminated earlier as provided herein. After the initial twenty (20) year term, this Agreement shall automatically renew under the same terms and conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless terminated as provided herein. Packet Page 381 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 13 of 23 January 1, 2015 10.2 Material Breach and Wind-Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this Agreement, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree otherwise, continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement for a minimum of twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the "Wind-Up Period"); provided, however, that the Wind-Up Period shall be 90 (ninety) days if the Material Breach involves the City's failure to make the Contract Payment; provided further, that during the Wind-Up Period, the City and District shall coordinate their efforts to prepare for the transition to other methods of providing fire and EMS service to the City. The City will be responsible for all payments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind-Up Period. 11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS 11.1 First Five Years. The City and District acknowledge that in entering into this Agreement, significant financial and personnel resources have been expended . Therefore, neither the City nor the District may terminate this Agreement within the first five (5) years following the Commencement Date except for a Material Breach of this Agreement which the breaching party fails to cure within a reasonable amount of time after receiving written notice from the non-breaching party. The City's and the District's intent by this section is to provide both service stability to citizens and job security to employees. 11.2 Years Six Through Twenty. In addition to terminating this Agreement for a Material Breach, either party may terminate this Agreement after the first five (5) years from the Commencement Date by providing the other party with two (2) years written notice of its intent to terminate during any period of extension. Notice under this provision may only be given once five years have elapsed after [9]the Commencement Date. 11.3 Termination Costs. The costs associated with terminating this Agreement shall be borne by the party who elects to terminate, or in the event of a Material Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following circumstances, the costs of termination shall be apportioned. 11.4 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated due to a change in law, each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination; or, in the event that the City and District mutually agree to terminate this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination. 11.5 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District, along with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority Planning Committee ("RFA Planning Committee") as provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and, subject to approval of the other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City an Packet Page 382 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 14 of 23 January 1, 2015 opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed as a material breach on the part of the City as defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement. In the even that a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and emergency medical services is created, inclusive of the City and District, this Interlocal Agreement will be terminated on the effective date of such Agreement, and neither the City nor the District shall be considered to have committed a material breach as defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement. 11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate their respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to terminate this Agreement and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs of termination. 11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of this Agreement shall be returned to the City as described below. This provision shall not apply to the formation of a RFA in which both the City and the District are participants. 11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock sold under this agreement, or equivalent apparatus and vehicles in use by the District at the time of termination shall be purchased back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment sold under this agreement, or equivalent equipment in use by the District at the time of termination shall be purchase back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 11.7.3 Rehire Personnel. In the event of termination within the first five (5) years of this Agreement by either party for any reason, the City shall rehire the personnel laid off by the District, up to fifty-four (54) personnel transferred with no loss of compensation and accumulated benefits. Accrued vacation and sick leave banks shall be transferred to the City and the District shall pay to the City the current cash value of the leave banks as determined under the same procedures set forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement. [10] 11.7.4 Former District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by rehired District personnel, which arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were employees of the District, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the City's actions during the term of the Agreement. Packet Page 383 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 15 of 23 January 1, 2015 12. DECLINE TO MERGE 12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement with any other fire district that is substantially equivalent to a merger, the City may decline to be included, and elect to end the Agreement without prejudice or penalty. The terms and conditions of that termination include written notice provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 to the District of the intent to end the Agreement not more than 90 days after receiving written notification provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 from the District that the District intends to merge with another entity. 12.1.1 Not a Material Breach. The City decision to not merge does not constitute a Material Breach of the Agreement and none of the penalties associated with a Material Breach shall apply to the City. 12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The Agreement will end not more than 12 months after the City officially notifies the District that it declines to be merged, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and the costs of termination shall be split evenly between the parties. 12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Agreement because of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction, the City exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7. 13. CITY FIRE DONATION FUND 13.1 Disposition of Fire Donation Funds. Effective on the Commencement Date of this Agreement, the amount of funds in the Fire Department Donation Fund on December 31, 2009 shall be forwarded to the District 1 to acquire fire and life safety tools and equipment not otherwise affordable through the regular budget process. Tools and equipment subsequently acquired with Donation Fund monies by the District will be assigned to Edmonds Fire Stations and apparatus but shall be used without restriction throughout the District service area. 14. TOWN OF WOODWAY 14.1 No Impact on this Agreement. The provision of fire and emergency medical services to the Town of Woodway by the District has no organizational or financial impact on the Agreement between the City and the District or the terms and conditions of said Agreement. 15. CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Packet Page 384 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 16 of 23 January 1, 2015 15.1 Civil Service Commission Notification. The City acknowledges that the City of Edmonds Civil Service Commission has been officially advised of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS 16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the City and District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are provided within the District and within the City unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. 16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it without regard to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the operational judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and obligations of Sections 2.4 through 2.8. 16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other. 17. INSURANCE 17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Agreement, each Party shall maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and equipment if any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling arrangements or compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). The City shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for accidents occurring on City owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The District shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability arising out of work or operations performed by the District under this Agreement in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The phrases "work or operations" and "maintenance and operations" shall include the services identified in Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire Marshal and the District's Fire Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and any obligation covered by Exhibit B, Section 9. 17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it has maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents and occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment Packet Page 385 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 17 of 23 January 1, 2015 claims, labor grievances, and other work-related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The City will hold harmless the District and its insurance provider for any such claims, lawsuits or accusations that occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement,[11] 17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it has maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and occurrences which may have occurred during the time period prior to the Commencement Date of the Agreement, including but not limited to injuries, employment claims, labor grievances, and other work-related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. 17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided, each party agrees to defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out of the negligent and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers, officials, employees and volunteers in connection with the performance of this Agreement. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, and except in the event of breach of this Agreement, the District and the City do hereby forever release each other from any claims, demands, damages or causes of action related to damage to equipment or property owned by the City or District or assumed under this Agreement. It is the intent of the City and District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above. 18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 18.1 Mediation. It is the intent of the City and District to resolve all disputes between them without litigation. Excluded from mediation are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, or establish levels of service under Section 2.4 of this Agreement and Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the City Council shall not be subject to review by a mediator; however, this shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Annual Contract Payment as a result of such decision. The City and District shall mutually agree upon a mediator. Any expenses incidental to mediation, including the mediator's fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District. If the City and District cannot agree upon a mediator, the City and District shall submit the matter to the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be appointed. This requirement to mediate the dispute may only be waived by Packet Page 386 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 18 of 23 January 1, 2015 mutual written agreement before a party may proceed to litigation as provided within this agreement. 18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in renegotiating the Contract Payment after having completed mediation, the City and District shall submit the matter to binding arbitration with the foregoing arbitration service. Excluded from binding arbitration are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, or establish levels of service under Section 2.4 of this Agreement and Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the City Council shall not be subject to review by an arbitrator; however, this shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Annual Contract Payment as a result of such decision. The arbitration shall be conducted according to the selected arbitration service's Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. At this arbitration, the arbitrator shall, as nearly as possible, apply the analysis used in this agreement and supporting Exhibits to adjust the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate from such analysis and use principles of fairness and equity, but should do so sparingly. Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any binding arbitration session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any subsequent mediations or arbitrations. 18.3 Prevailing Party. In the event either party herein finds it necessary to bring an action against the other party to enforce any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof or any instrument executed pursuant to this Agreement by reason of any breach or default hereunder or there under, the party prevailing in any such action or proceeding shall be paid all costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the other party, and in the event any judgment is secured by such prevailing party, all such costs and attorneys' fees of collection shall be included in any such judgment. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington. 19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile, sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to: District Secretary: City Clerk: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No.1 City of Edmonds 12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5th Avenue North Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 387 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 19 of 23 January 1, 2015 Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from time-to-time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document. 19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City and the District from entering into contracts for service in support of this Agreement. 19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 19.4 Entire Agreement. This entire agreement between the City and District hereto is contained in this Agreement and exhibits hereto; and this Agreement supersedes all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this transaction. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by the City and District subsequent to the date hereof. Dated this _____ day of __________, 20___. SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Commissioner Commissioner By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Commissioner Commissioner By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Commissioner Commissioner Attest: _______________________ District Secretary Approved as to form: Packet Page 388 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 20 of 23 January 1, 2015 By: _________________________ Fire District Attorney CITY OF EDMONDS By: _________________________ Attest: _________________________ City Mayor City Clerk Approved as to form: By: _________________________ City Attorney Packet Page 389 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 21 of 23 January 1, 2015 Definitions The following definitions shall apply throughout this Agreement. a. City: City of Edmonds. b. City Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of the City of Edmonds c. City Fire Department: The Edmonds Fire Department. d. City Fire Stations: Currently, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 20. e. Commencement Date: The date at which the performance and obligations of the City and District as contained herein begin. f. City Personnel: The employees of the City of Edmonds Fire Department as of the Commencement Date who are transferring employment to the District. g. Contract Payment: The annual amount that the City will pay to the District pursuant to this Agreement. h. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No.1. i. Effective Date: The date this Agreement is executed by the City and District. j. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection District No.1. k. Firefighter/EMS Personnel: Full-time, compensated employees, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or paramedics l. Grid Cards: The electronic file within the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, which is used to determine fire station response order for Fire District 1. m. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this agreement means either valid insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or carrier approved to do business in the State of Washington by the Washington State Insurance Commissioner or valid self-insurance through a self-insurance pooling organization approved for operation in the State of Washington by the Washington State Risk Manager or any combination of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if both are approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington. n. Material Breach: A Material Breach means: the District's failure to provide minimum staffing levels as described within this Agreement; the City's failure to timely pay the Contract Payment as described within this Agreement, or the Packet Page 390 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 22 of 23 January 1, 2015 City's or District's failure to comply within this Agreement concerning the City's fire stations, equipment and/or apparatus. o. Wind-Up Period: The 12 months immediately following formal notification of a Material Breach by either party except as defined in Section 10.2. Packet Page 391 of 394 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations Page 23 of 23 January 1, 2015 EXHIBITS NOT ATTACHED Packet Page 392 of 394 P a c k e t P a g e 3 9 3 o f 3 9 4 P a c k e t P a g e 3 9 4 o f 3 9 4