Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-01-22 City Council Packet
o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JANUARY 22, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for an undetermined amount. 5. Reappointment of two Cemetery Board Members 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. Edmonds Willow Creek Daylighting Update (45 min) 2. City Sustainability Activities Update (30 min) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 8. ACTION ITEM 1. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies for the Wayside Horn Project. (20 min) 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process (30 min) 2. Update on Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Project (30 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1). 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Edmonds City Council Agenda January 22, 2019 Page 1 ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda January 22, 2019 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 01-15-2019 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2019 Elected Officials Present Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Councilmember (arrived 6:53 p.m.) Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Mike Nelson, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Dave Earling, Mayor Elected Officials Absent Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Staff Present Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Carrie Hite, PRCS Director 1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM At 6:40 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). At 7:01, the Mayor emerged and announced that the executive session would be extended for five minutes, until 7:05 p.m. ADJOURN At 7:04 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: E011519 Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 15, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember (by phone) Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (by phone) 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Rob English, City Engineer Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present; Councilmembers Teitzel and Johnson participated by phone. r' Ln T 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA o w COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED E UNANIMOUSLY. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Q COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2019 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2019 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS. 4. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a 5. SAFETY & DISASTER COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTION 6. APPOINTMENT OF 2019 ALTERNATE FOR EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD 7. SELECT HOMES 7902 203RD ST SW DEDICATION 8. STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER & STORM MAINTENANCE WORKER JOB DESCRIPTIONS (UPDATED) 9. SENIOR STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER - CEMENT FINISHER 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE Peter Rogoff, Sound Transit CEO, introduced Kamuron Gurol, North Corridor Director; Patrice Hardy, Government Relations Manager; and Kathy Leotta, Project Manager. He thanked the Edmonds City Council and taxpayers for lending Mayor Earling to the Sound Transit Board. Mayor Earling has served longer than any other board member and characterizes himself as the board member who can get to the meat of the matter the fastest with the fewest number of words. Sound Transit is grateful for his leadership and the vital role he plays, reminding the board of things that have been tried before with mixed success. Mr. Rogoff recognized the region's extraordinarily rapid growth; Puget Sound Regional Council estimates the population will increase more than 40% in the next 30 years to 6 million. Congestion has more than doubled in the last six years and that is expected to continue. The decision by the region not to build high capacity transit over 50 years ago is now rearing its head in terms of road congestion. Mr. Rogoff said 2019 is a big year for work in Snohomish County. He reviewed: • Long history of investing in Snohomish County • North Corridor Sound Move Keeping tax dollars local o Sound Transit subareas ■ Snohomish County ■ North King County ■ East King County ■ South King County ■ Pierce County Northgate Link Extension - under construction o Length: 4.3 miles o Stations:3 o Two underground stations: ■ University District ■ Roosevelt o One elevated station: ■ Northgate o Start of service: 2021 0 500 stall garage — already open o Project trending under budget and on time Lynnwood Link Extension o Length: 8.5 miles o Stations: 4, plus 1 additional station added in 2031 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 as Ln T 0 w c m E 0 2 Q o Start of service: 2024 o Removing 4,000 trees along right-of-way, replanting 20,000 Everett Link Extension o Length: 16.3 miles o Stations: 6 plus 1 provisional o Start of service: 2036 Longest extension in capital program o Longest extension (16.3 miles) o Northgate is only halfway to Lynnwood o Lynnwood is only halfway to Everett Westlake 4 3.2 UW 44.3 Northgate 4 8.5 Lynnwood 416.3 Everett 2009 2016 2021 2024 2036 F 32.3mile corridor Bus Rapid Transit — Stride o Begins running in 2024 o Serving North, East and South of Lake Washington o Fast, frequent, reliable o Connecting to Link light rail at Shoreline, Lynnwood, Bellevue, Tukwila System Expansion o Link Light Rail ■ 116-mile regional system ■ Connecting 86 cities across Puget Sound when fully built out ■ 8 new stations in Snohomish County ■ Serving Everett and all major cities in Central Puget Sound 0 91 miles of commuter rail o Largest transit expansion program in the United States o Bus ■ 45 miles of Bus Rapid Transit serving 12 cities, in the I-405, SR 522 and SR 518 corridors 'o ■ Bus -on -Shoulder opportunities: I-5, I-405, SR 518, SR 167 a • Working Together Q o Integrating light rail with Swift o Map of Swift Blue Line and Green Line Ln T 0 2025 ST Express network plan c o Community Transit restructure to serve Link light rail w c m Mr. Gurol reviewed Edmonds and Mukilteo Improvements: E • Overview o Provides for parking and access improvements at Edmonds & Mukilteo stations Q o Completion targeted for 2024 o $40 million for improvements o Plan does not indicate how to allocate budget between stations o Consultant team led by Fehr & Peers Upcoming Tasks o Stakeholder and Public Meetings ■ Public and stakeholder sessions ■ Online open house and surveys o Additional data collection o Determine evaluation criteria and performance measures o Access improvements review, evaluation, and rating o Funding allocation o Develop & refine access improvement options Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a o Advance to Sound Transit Board Tasks Underway o Define project goals o Initial data collection and documentation o Review prior studies & identified potential improvements o Public Involvement Plan o Interagency Group Meetings — first meeting on February 5th Projected Schedule Councilmember Mesaros referred to an email the Council received regarding parking around the Sounder on the waterfront that intimated a lack of coordination between Sound Transit and the City and that the City is holding up permission to park in a parking lot. The parking lot is empty so people have parked there and received parking tickets. The solution is likely signage regarding available parking. He noted before he retired, he often used Sounder to travel to downtown Seattle. Mr. Rogoff said Mayor Earling forwarded him the email and he chatted with the author. This is an issue in many areas but particularly in Edmonds. People are being asked to use transit assets in greater intensity during this period of maximum constraint, but there will still be needs beyond that three week period when the viaduct is closed and the tunnel is not yet open. Station agents have been instructed and announcements are being made to inform riders where parking is illegal and where parking may be available. For example, Sound Transit currently leases nine spaces at the Methodist Church; although it is a bus stop away, those spaces are not being highly utilized. That may be because Sound Transit needs to do a better job of informing riders of those parking spaces. Should those spaces fill, there may be an opportunity to lease more spaces although nine spaces is the maximum that can be leased without a permit. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the growth of ridership over the last three years, particularly north ° U to south. Mr. Rogoff answered it has been about 36% on Sounder North back to 2014 and has kind of W. plateaued although there is still potential to grow that. Traffic patterns in the region will continue to change even without the closure of the viaduct, tolling the tunnel and other changes due to increased congestion c and drivers seeking a better trip. Councilmember Mesaros asked what the 36% represented in numbers. Mr. a Rogoff answered there were 1265 weekday daily riders in 2014, about the same in 2015, 1722 in 2016 and Q 1729 in 2017. Councilmember Mesaros observed approximately 1700 people/day are taking Sounder North. a, Mr. Rogoff said growth on the south line has been greater. Sounder is somewhat constrained in the L i T availability of railcars to serve north and south simultaneously. c w Councilmember Tibbott asked how Edmonds citizens will access the light rail station, observing one of the newest ways will be the 185t' Street station in Shoreline. He asked what coordination could be expected E with Sound Transit and Community Transit with regard to reliable service connecting downtown Edmonds to the 185t' station. Mr. Rogoff said Sound Transit does a great deal of coordination in planning and operations with Community Transit. He could not say precisely what the plans were for an a Edmonds/Shoreline connection. Mr. Gurol said he has heard encouraging discussion about a connection between the Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace stations. Councilmember Tibbott commented the Mountlake Terrace station is scheduled to open several years later. Mr. Gurol said the Northgate station opens in 2021 but both 185t1i and Mountlake Terrace stations open in 2024. Community Transit will make a determination regarding what is the best connection; SR104 would likely be closest to the Mountlake Terrace station. Sound Transit will continue to monitor that and report to the Council. Mayor Earling said that is currently under discussion; Community Transit is committed to providing a direct connection between the Edmonds waterfront and the Mountlake Terrace garage. Councilmember Nelson referred to the North Sounder rail line, noting there have been challenges with mudslides, train capacity and sharing tracks. He asked what the $40 million in shared improvements would Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a fund. Mr. Rogoff answered the vision was primarily parking. The north line has had a good winter with only one interruption so far, reaping the benefit of investments that Sound Transit and WSDOT made in very high intensity mudslide areas. The intent of the $40 million is not for further mudslide mitigation but largely for parking. Mr. Gurol said the project description includes access which would include pedestrian and bike access. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Sound Transit has been in negotiations with the Port of Edmonds about parking. Mr. Gurol said he spoke with the Executive Director Bob McChesney today, following up on a meeting they had about two months ago. Mr. McChesney will serve on the interagency group for the project. The Port is in the early stages of a project and plan to proceed with it based on input they receive regarding the Sound Transit project. They agree parking is a high need in Edmonds, if there is a way for the two agencies to identify common goals and a project that could be commonly funded, that would be very encouraging, but it is too early to say whether that will be possible. He walked some of the Port -owned properties with Mr. McChesney that are proximate to the Sounder station; most have technical issues that would need to be addressed. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed that would be good for the future but she was curious if there were any parking areas that could be used while the viaduct is closed and before the tunnel opens. Mr. Gurol said Mr. McChesney indicated those spaces were committed. There is also the possibility of additional spaces at the United Method Church spaces. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she lives near Lake Ballinger and is aware that the Mountlake Terrace garage is filled most days with bus riders. She was curious how more parking would be created in that area, particularly with the construction of the transit oriented housing development across the street. Mr. Rogoff acknowledged that is the condition at almost all the parking lots which is the reason they work closely with other transit providers as well as transportation network companies (TNC) like Lyft and Uber regarding last mile service. During the viaduct/tunnel closure, there is a discount to take Uber and Lyft to a transit station. All four Lynnwood Link stops will be opened at the same time so the additional surge will be spread over the four stations and more parking is being constructed at the Lynnwood station. No additional parking is funded in the plan at the Mountlake Terrace station, but there are discussions about retaining the temporary construction parking lot with some financial recompense. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented people love their cars and it will be challenging to get them a, to take Uber and Lyft. When she visits the east coast, Uber is her primary transportation source and during , O a recent visit to San Francisco, she used BART, a transportation mode has engrained in that population for c many years. She anticipated hearing a lot about the lack of parking, a challenge for Community Transit, w Sound Transit and the cities around the stations. Mr. Rogoff agreed, referring to his comments that congestion had doubled in the last six years, anticipating it will likely double again. Although many want E to superimpose the solution on current conditions, conditions could be quite different when Lynnwood Link is opened in 2024. Q Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $40 million would be used for a parking structure. Mr. Gurol said all options are being considered; structured parking is very expensive. Some structured parking is being built in other communities and Sound Transit is learning from that experience. Although $40 million is a lot of money, it doesn't go very far for structured parking. It will be important to be as creative as possible to build what helps the local communities access light rail the best, whether that is additional surface parking, pedestrian or bicycle improvements, better transit access for CT, additional vehicle parking, etc. all of those are potential solutions. Their net is wide and includes structured parking. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Council President Fraley-Monillas' comment that the Mountlake Terrace garage is often full after 10:00 a.m. pointing out there needs to be parking if people are going to ride transit,. Mr. Rogoff said several years ago the Sound Transit Board adopted a policy to eventually transition to paid parking. The first step has been taken where riders can purchase an HOV permit at a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 4.2.a number of lots at an affordable rate such as $5/month. With Northgate, Sound Transit will be introducing single occupancy vehicle permits at market rates for approximately 25-50% of the lot; the spaces would be reserved until 9:00 a.m. and then open to all. Sound Transit is working on a timeline for rolling that out in a number of parking facilities as well as the rates that will be charged. Mayor Earling recognized Ms. Hardy who has been with government relations in Snohomish County almost as long as he has been on the Sound Transit Board. Councilmember Teitzel observed the total funding for ST3 was $54 billion. Mr. Rogoff said that was one of many different ways to measure the amount; it is a $54 billion package that includes debt service, ongoing operating funds and capital costs over a 25 year period., Councilmember Teitzel asked if voters will have an opportunity to approve additional funding if the project exceeds that amount. Mr. Rogoff said the hope is over a period 25 years as has happened in the past, there are years where there is very competitive pricing and a lot of projects can be completed for a comparatively low amount; the region is now in a very hot construction market which is the reason for cost growth on the Lynnwood Link extension and Federal Way. The hope is it all evens out over the decades. The ballot measure is structured so that voters adopted two things, 1) a map of projects to be built, and 2) a tax increase. If the projects come in under budget, the Board would roll back the taxes sooner than planned; if the program is more expensive, those taxes will continue to be collected until the entire map of projects is built. 2. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY REPORT Adam Cornell, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, said he is honored to be the Snohomish County prosecutor. As a newly elected prosecuting attorney, he appreciated the work the City Council does as public servants representing him and the community. He was grateful to have lived in Edmonds for 17 years and thanked the Council for the support they have shown him over the years. He looked forward to this role and trying to create safe, livable communities for everyone in Snohomish County including Edmonds. Mr. Cornell explained there are three divisions in the county prosecutor's office, criminal, family support a and civil. With regard to criminal, along with the Snohomish County Sheriff Ty Trenary, he is the chief law enforcement officer for Snohomish County. They prosecute all felony cases as well as many misdemeanor , O crimes though they do not prosecute misdemeanor crimes for Edmonds. With regard to civil, he is the attorney for Snohomish County in the same way that Jeff Taraday is the attorney for the City. With regard w to the family support division, it is responsible for making sure children and families are getting child support payments. E There are 188 employees in the 3 divisions, a $29 million budget, 66 deputy prosecuting attorneys in the criminal division, 27 in the civil division and 9 in the family support division. As the elected prosecutor, he a appoints all the deputy prosecuting attorneys who do the day-to-day work, appear in court and prosecute cases that affect the safety of the community. There are specialty positions in the civil division including a deputy prosecuting attorney assigned to the airport which is owned by Snohomish County. In the criminal division, there is an ID theft deputy prosecuting attorney, and attorneys assigned to the Snohomish County Regional Drug and Gang Task Force and the Auto Theft Task Force position as well as an attorney assigned to involuntary treatment commitment. They do not represent Edmonds in misdemeanor or civil matters other than juveniles misdemeanors. Misdemeanor juvenile crimes in Snohomish County with the exception of driving offenses are handled by the Snohomish County prosecutor's office. The criminal division had 5,600 referrals last year; a referral is case that come to them from law enforcement. He thanked Police Chief Al Compaan and the Edmonds Police Department for their efforts working with him. The police operate under a standard of probably cause; when they believe a crime has been committed and they believe it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed, they submit Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 4.2.a referral to their office. Of the 5,600 felonies referred last year, approximately 3,000 were filed by his office and his office declined to file charges on 2,200 of those cases. In juvenile court, there were 1,200 referrals, 545 cases filed and 626 referrals declined. In their district court that handles misdemeanors, there were 6,000 referrals; of those 3,600 cases were filed and 1700 were declined. Mr. Cornell explained there is a big difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As the county prosecutor, he and his deputies have an ethical obligation to only charge cases where they believe there are sufficient facts to make a criminal charge. He has no interest in charging or prosecuting people who are actually innocent or for whom there is not sufficient quantum evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That can be disappointing to members of the public who do not necessarily understand the difference between a referral from a police agency and the prosecuting attorney's high ethical obligation to meet the highest standard in the criminal justice system, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Cornell acknowledged those can be difficult decisions. While he was a deputy in the special assault unit, he had to have very difficult conversations with children and families, where they knew something happened but there was not enough evidence to charge the case. The prosecuting attorney is ethically obligated to make their decision based on reason and reality. That would explain a lot of the cases that are declined or not charged by their office. The cases that are filed are those where there is sufficient proof and evidence and belief that the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. About 95% of cases end up being resolved via a plea agreement which is made in consultation with victims. Contrary to what people see on TV, victims do not decide whether to press charges, prosecutors make the decision whether or not to charge. That is done with the input from victims, but the criminal justice system gives prosecutors the discretion to make those hard decisions. There are good reasons for that; for example, in a domestic violence case where there may have been a long pattern of domestic violence, the victim may have to reason to want to prosecute a case, but it may need to be done in the interest of justice and to protect the victim and the community. With regard to his priorities while in office, Mr. Cornell said he has already begun working on addressing a the opioid crisis with a focus on treatment and prevention. He wants to be a prosecutor that in exercising Q discretion, just because someone can be charged does not necessarily mean they should. When those a, decisions are made, particularly with people who have been ravaged by this crisis and by substance abuse, , n it is done in a way that gets to the root cause of why someone is facing substance abuse disorder to help them not be a reoccurring member of the criminal class. The Snohomish County prosecutor's office has a w very robust drug program and a very robust mental health program. Leading up to his election, he was given authority by his predecessor to negotiate the budget with the Snohomish County Council which included the creation of a felony diversion program that provides a second change for non-violent felons with no criminal history. Q Mr. Cornell explained for some people who have made a mistake willing and are willing to be held accountable, they can avoid felony a conviction in certain non-violent cases and pay restitution. It is not just about giving someone a second chance, but having people be productive, taxpaying members of the community. He had the full support of the Snohomish County Council for that effort. With regard to prevention, drug dealers in the community need to be held accountable and ensure those who are dealing opioids on the streets are held accountable and vigorously prosecuted. There also needs to be discussion about the pharmaceutical industry including a way to hold them and those closely associated with it accountable. More information about that will be made available in the coming weeks. Mr. Cornell said he hoped to be an innovative prosecuting attorney, someone who was willing to listen and look at creative solutions that make the community safer. Making the community safer does not always mean someone going to prison for a long time. The approach needs to be measured and thoughtful and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 consider the underlying, root causes of why people commit crimes. With regard to violent crimes and sexual assault crimes, he assured those would be vigorously prosecuted to protect the community. Not every case is the same and he intends to exercise the discretion he and his deputy prosecuting attorneys have in a way that honors the community and supports his efforts to make the community safer. As a prosecuting attorney's office, they are held to the highest standards; they are keepers of the public trust not only as prosecuting attorneys but as public officials. He intends to lead an office that understands they are the keepers of the public trust and to ensure the community has continued faith in work they do. Councilmember Nelson appreciated Mr. Cornell's interest in the drug problem and going after drug dealers. Like many, Councilmember Nelson was shocked and surprised to learn there was a drug stash house just out the city limits in Lynnwood that was regularly serviced by Mexican drug cartels, a multitude of different drugs and a multiagency, multistate investigation. He asked if other stash houses could be expected to be uncovered in Snohomish County and what could be done to combat that. Mr. Cornell said he served as a deputy prosecutor and special assistant to the United Stated States Attorney for five years and was assigned to the Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force and prosecuted those crimes at the federal level and understood the impact those crimes have on the community. He said that question could also be addressed to Chief Compaan and others in the police department. The prosecutor's office has always worked hand in glove in those efforts to ensure major drug dealers are being held accountable and they have done a good job of that. He was involved in a number of multijurisdictional multidefendant prosecutions in that role and will continue to do that. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the prosecuting attorney's office was sending people to the diversion center next to the jail. Mr. Cornell said Council President Fraley-Monillas was referring to the robust diversion program that has been supported by Sheriff Trenary, Executive Somers and other County leaders. That program avoids his office entirely; the SCSO and other partners with embedded social workers assist people before they come into contact with the criminal justice system. He supports the work they are doing with regard to the diversion center but those cases do not come to the prosecuting attorney's office. Council President Fraley-Monillas was excited to hear what he had in store with regard to big pharma accountability. She was proud to have Mr. Cornell as a resident in the community. as Councilmember Mesaros recognized there is not only big pharma but also those in the medical community , n that big pharma has utilized to write prescriptions. Mr. Cornell said the legislature has the power to pass c laws to limit the time during which a prescription is valid. Consideration needs to be given to doctors writing w prescriptions for lengths of time that may be too long; that is another way to keep opioids off the street. He suggested that was better directed to Senator Liias or Representatives Peterson and Ortiz -Self. 2. 2018 PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT +° Q Jim Zachor, Junior, Zachor & Thomas, the City prosecutor's office, introduced himself, explaining he has been with Zachor & Thomas for ten years. He is the supervising attorney for Edmonds, supervising Jim Zachor, Senior; Kristen Beck; and Charlotte Storey. Mr. Zachor Senior handles civil drug, felony and firearm forfeitures. Ms. Beck handles the probation review calendars and jail calendar on Mondays. He described her background; prior to joining Zachor & Thomas, she worked for the United States Air Force in several capacities as well as the Pierce County Prosecutor and Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Ms. Storey graduated from law school in May 2018 and quickly established herself as one of the brightest, most capable and most polished young attorneys. She is the in -court prosecutor on Wednesdays, handling all criminal cases and traffic infractions. Mr. Zachor introduced attorney Chad Krepps who occasionally handles some of the more difficult clients in Edmonds or covers for other attorneys. Mr. Krepps described his background; he has been with Zachor & Thomas approximately five years, an attorney for six years, starting his career prosecuting Bremerton Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 4.2.a municipal court cases as well as doing some defense work. He said their report will address many of same issues that Mr. Cornell spoke to on a county level. Two questions he brings to cases, 1) why did the suspect commit crime, and 2) what can the prosecutor do to prevent him/her from doing it or other crime again. Is it an issue of substance abuse, alcohol, drugs, untreated/undiagnosed mental health issue that is causing the behavior, etc. With regard to crimes that are charged, Mr. Krepps explained they adhere to the traditional deterrent theory, their action is most likely to have an effect if punishment is swift, certain and proportionate to the crime. Most of the cases that come to the Edmonds Municipal Court are direct filings from law enforcement via the SECTOR program which allows an officer, after conducting their investigation and determining they have probable cause that a crime has been committed, to file criminal charges by issuing a citation straight to the court and prosecutor's office. If the person is in custody, they are seen the next court day. In an out - of -custody situation, the person is brought to court within 1-2 weeks to be arraigned. That is beneficial because whatever act they are alleged to have committed, they are being held accountable, at least at an arraignment level, going through their rights, assigned to an attorney, and facing prosecution. Mr. Krepps explained charges can also be filed via referral, where an officer investigates and forwards the report to them for review. Mr. Zachor does most of the charging reviews for Edmonds. There may be a question regarding sufficiency of evidence, whether the alleged conduct is alarming or criminal behavior, etc. If further investigation is needed, law enforcement is contacted and asked to do supplemental investigation/reporting. If they do not believe there is probable cause for crime, they will inform law enforcement they are declining to file charges. There are situations where although probable cause may exist for a crime to be charged, charging that crime doesn't serve a public interest or deterrent effect. With regard to therapeutic justice, there is a move in Snohomish County, the State and Edmonds toward a c therapeutic model, especially for misdemeanors. Not all crimes are committed by criminals; some are c committed by someone who made a bad decision, there is a lesson to be learned and that lesson may not be 0 jail. Edmonds Municipal Court started a domestic violence Moral Recognition Therapy (MRT) that is c operated by the court's probation officer. MRT is a cognitive behavior plan where individuals reprogram a the way they process information and make decisions. Often prior to a finding of guilt, the prosecutor's a office enters into a stipulated order of continuance whereby someone can avoid a criminal conviction by a, taking accountability, recognizing the need for treatment or assistance to avoid committing the crime in the , n future. Similarly, they continue to support alcohol/drug evaluations and follow through with recommended 0 treatment. w c With regard to case filings, there was an overall increase in case filings in 2018 across all reported offenses. m E Factors to consider include population increases, enforcement focuses, police staffing, and policy decisions. Not all crimes need to be charged and not all charges need to be convicted. There were 4,268 traffic infraction filed in Edmonds Municipal Court and 24 non traffic. There were 125 DUI/physical control a charges filed in Edmonds through November, a 26% increase over last year even without December. The increase is likely due to the increase in population which translates to more drivers especially on Highway 99, increase in traffic infractions as DUI arrests often stem from a traffic infraction, and increased focus in their office and the Edmonds Police Department in training regarding what a DUI looks like. DUI is not just alcohol, marijuana DUIs continue to increase. For officers that are well trained such as Edmonds officers, prescription drug DUIs are also increasing. Challenges with DUI prosecutions include a substantial delay with the Washington State Toxicology Lab for blood results. Breath test results are available instantaneously from law enforcement. If a defendant refuses to provide a breath test, the officer makes a decision whether there are sufficient facts to proceed with prosecution without knowing the contents of the person's breath/blood. If that evidence is necessary, the officers contacts a judge to issue a warrant to have Swedish -Edmonds draw blood which is sent to the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 4.2.a Washington State Toxicology Lab. Alcohol DUI results have a two month turnaround; other substances can take 5-6 months. This is due to, 1) an increase in DUI enforcement across the state, increased training and officers' recognition that other substances affect driving, and 2) staffing constrains and issues at the State Toxicology Lab. If an officer stops someone on the suspicion of driving under the influence and they need to get blood due to a refusal to provide breath or it is not an alcohol -related DUI, if the person is arrested and taken into custody, they come to court the next day or the next judicial day if they are not in custody. Judge Coburn will review for probable cause and set conditions to ensure the person is not putting themselves or the community at risk. Mr. Krepps relayed there were no major legislative changes for the prosecution of crimes. There were some changes to how a court views and treats indigent defendants in regard to imposition of legal financial obligations. The legislature added that someone who is indigent is now considered a manifest hardship, allowing the court to waive almost all legal financial obligations. That causes some issues for prosecution of the case; not all crimes need jail and often a nominal fine is an appropriate sanction. However, for those who qualify as indigent and the court waives all fines, the only option is jail as a deterrent. To Councilmember Nelson's comment about the drug stash house, Mr. Zachor said their office is involved in the prosecution of civil drug, felony, firearm and DUI forfeitures. Civil forfeitures are a mechanism to go after drug dealers. The goal is to is take away the benefits of being a drug dealer such as money from drug transactions, firearms used to protect their drugs, and cars used to transport the drugs. They rely heavily on the Snohomish County prosecutor's office because many of those cases are felony cases. Other than the 10% that goes to the State, proceeds from forfeitures go to the Police Department to help fund controlled substance related activities. In the last two years they have been able to forfeit approximately $41,000 in cash, a 2003 BMW, 3 firearms, numerous gift cards, and there are several pending forfeitures. That is an emphasis they can take to deter drug dealers from operating in Edmonds. Regarding substantive motions and trials, Mr. Zachor explained substantive motions are those where an officer appears and the City incurs costs for overtime. Substantive motions also occur when an officer c doesn't do their job; through training, experience and input from their office, they did not lose one a substantive motion in 2018. With regard to jury trials, there were 5 in 2018; most cases are resolved via a a plea bargain because jury trials are expensive. Of the five jury trials, three resulted in conviction, one not a, guilty and one dismissed due to a jurisdictional issue; the three guilty verdicts are being appealed. , n T r With regard to the emphasis on the opioid crisis, Mr. Zachor advised their office is part of a task force w whose focus is on lower level crimes committed to support a drug habit or survive. Jail is not working and the goal is identifying new alternatives to help people kick an addiction and become productive members of society. A tour is planned later this month of potential sites. Until that program is available, they have changed prosecution of those type of cases, focusing on treatment and getting people the help they need. Q Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for the data shared, particularly the increase in DUIs charges. Of the criteria cited, he anticipated the quality of individual officers plays a significant role. One DUI officer received statewide recognition for her tenacious efforts in pursuing DUI offenders. With regard to the delays at the Washington State Toxicology Lab, he asked if it would be helpful to inform legislators of the delay since that evidence is needed in a timely manner to prove guilt, particularly for repeat offenders. Mr. Krepps said the toxicology lab has contacted the Washington State Association of Prosecuting Attorneys to ask that charges not be filed until the blood results are received, but they do not feel that is a workable solution. Mr. Zachor said one of the difficulties with the toxicology lab's recommendation is repeat offenders. Judge Coburn is extremely tough on repeat offenders from keeping them in jail to requiring ignition interlock devices or an ankle bracelet that monitors alcohol consumption. Without filing a charge, those conditions cannot be imposed, putting the community at greater risk. If a case is delayed 3- 4 months, the person can continue to be monitored. In their and the Police Department's opinion, it is better Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a to have people monitored to ensure safety. Every DUI conviction includes a mandatory $250 fee that is supposed to be used to fund the toxicology lab. He said the Edmonds Police Department is truly vigilant about DUI enforcement. Councilmember Mesaros found it disheartening to hear that it takes so long to get toxicology results. He asked if the City pays fee for processing blood tests. Chief Compaan said there is no fee. Councilmember Mesaros said there are good medical services throughout Snohomish County including Swedish -Edmonds in Edmonds. He suggested jurisdictions in Snohomish County could come together and establish the same level of criteria necessary from a legal standpoint for control of evidence and chain of evidence instead of relying on the State lab. Mr. Zachor said he and Mr. Cornell would love to have their own toxicology lab; unfortunately, it is highly technical and highly regulated by the WAC. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to an article in the Seattle Times in the last six months about the state crime lab and the fact that they do not have enough staff to process evidence quicker. It is beyond blood work for DUIs, it includes rape kits and a variety of evidence. Until the legislature gives them enough staff, those delays will continue. m 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Kari Marino, Verizon Wireless, commented on the importance of the work the Council is doing to support small wireless facilities. Macros have been around for a long time and provide coverage; the small wireless facilities are required to argument capacity. Capacity has become more important as a mobile data usage has increased; it has increased 35 times since 2016, and internet machine to machine devices have increased from about 36 million estimated in 2013 to 263 million by the end of 2018. More than 50% of households c are wireless only and more than 80% of phone calls originate on wireless phones. Services provided by the 0 wireless industry are integral to everyone lives, whether the doorbell ring cameras, shopping on phones, c etc. Mr. Taraday has her contact information and she is available for questions during that agenda item. 0 Carol Tagayun, Director of External Affairs, AT&T, provided comment on Agenda Item 10, Small Cell n Wireless. She thanked the Council for taking on this policy decision, citing the importance of developing a a good policy for the community and its residents. Consumers today are very reliant on devices, particularly with the advent of the Smartphone, people expect to have data capacity and service wherever they are. Since , n the advent of the iPhone, AT&T has seen a 360,000% increase in data usage on their network. Many wireless households depend on their cell phones to call 911, making wireless service critical in residential w areas. For these reasons, AT&T continually upgrades it network to ensure there is capacity and coverage to meet the demand. AT&T is building out where the demand is needed which includes investing and building E new technologies such as small cell service that adds data capacity in areas where there is already coverage. Building this out and ensuring coverage will allow AT&T to bring new services, faster high speed networks, etc. AT&T is interested in a workable code where they can provide services when they're needed. She is a available to answer questions; Samm Jaenicke, Edmonds, referred to information provided at the presentation on January 10 regarding Compass Housing. When Compass CEO Janet Pope painted a word picture of how lovely the Blokable development will be, she talked about screening of potential residents and the presence of onsite managers. She also said some people would pay zero rent and they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their housing unit as long as they do not disrupt the community which Ms. Jaenicke concluded sounded a lot like low barrier housing. Although Ms. Pope said that Edmonds residents would be given advance notice in order to apply for housing early, she did not say people that currently work or live in Edmonds would have priority. Ms. Pope sited the Ronald project as an example of how well Compass Housing works. Ms. Jaenicke suggested one only needed to talk to people who live in that neighborhood to hear about people sleeping on their doorsteps who become belligerent when asked to leave, and human excrement and needles on private property. The subject is essentially moot because they have been granted the zoning to build at Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 the Edmonds Lutheran Church. She hoped with community input, it could be avoided in other areas of the community. With regard to the Bartell development at Westgate, she has heard increased property values would result in increased tax revenue due to the development even though no property tax is charged on the housing units. She asked whether that increased tax could compensate for the infrastructure needs of 91 additional families for the 12 years of the multi -family tax exemption such as teachers, fire department, police, public works. With regard to the additional 1200 housing units needed by 2035, she asked about progress on those units, when they began being counted, and how many housing units have been built or are under development. She noted 1200 housing units in the 16 years between now and 2035 equals 75 units/year, an amount that would be smaller if the equation started prior to this year. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee discussed: • 2019 Finance Committee Objectives and Primary Course of Action o Create a budget calendar o Schedule a budget retreat o Addressing hiring new staff outside the budget process • Non -Represented Staff Salaries — will be presented to Council in February Public Safety, Personnel and Planning Committee Councilmember Nelson reported the committee reviewed job descriptions for the Safety & Disaster Coordinator, Street Maintenance and Storm Maintenance Worker, and Senior Street Maintenance Worker — Cement Finisher. All were approved on the Consent Agenda. Parks & Public Works Committee a Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the committee discussed: a, • Update on Wayside Horn Project — will be presented to Council in near future Ln o Project will cost more than expected 0 • Authorization to Purchase of Storm Division Vactor Truck — presented later on tonight's agenda w • Dedication of Right -of -Way for 2-lot subdivision — approved on Consent Agenda c • Small Cell Wireless Facilities — presented later on tonight's agenda E 8. PUBLIC HEARING Q 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE BAN OF THE USE OF NON- COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher recalled last October Council President Fraley-Monillas led a discussion that proposed banning food service businesses in the City from offering expanded polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam, containers. That discussion led to further direction to include all non- compostable food service containers and drafting an ordinance that would work toward eliminating single use plastic food service items, particularly containers. This ordinance's focus is on containers such as plates, bowls, trays, cups, clamshell containers, condiments packets, etc. A companion ordinance is being drafted to specifically ban the remaining category of single use food service items such as plastic straws, utensils and stir sticks as a result of a resolution passed by the Council in summer 2018. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a Mr. Fisher explained serviceable compostable alternatives for common single use plastic items are widely available and businesses are highly encouraged to look at using or continuing to use durable foodware to reduce waste. His outreach program will assist businesses as necessary as they move toward compliance. The ordinance's effective date is January 2020. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this issue, the use of compostable products, has been discussed with the Council for about seven years. Her informal survey found most businesses are moving away from Styrofoam and non-compostable food service items. She anticipated the biggest challenges will be restaurants on Highway 99 where English is not a first language, but anticipated a year was a sufficient amount of time for outreach. She has visited Costco and other big box stores and found they have a variety of compostable containers, silverware, cups, etc. Councilmember Teitzel reported he and Mr. Fisher have begun the outreach effort including meeting with Edmonds School District Superintendent and the CEO of Swedish -Edmonds to give them advance warning and answer their questions regarding the single -use plastics/non-compostable food service item ban. Mr. Fisher explained Swedish -Edmonds and the Edmonds School District represent institutional cafeteria entities that this ordinance will affect. The meetings were an opportunity to provide information that will allow them to make changes to meet the intent of the ordinance. Swedish -Edmonds already uses a lot of compostable items in their food service and have had a compost collection unit for over 10 years. Both fully embraced the need and did not seem too concerned about the change. Councilmember Tibbott thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Teitzel for their diligence in moving this forward. With regard to composable condiment containers, he noted a lot of those are from national sources and asked the likelihood of having composable condiment containers. Mr. Fisher said there are a variety of products that meet the compostable standards in the ordinance as well as condiments without packaging. Councilmember Tibbott concluded the food industry is beginning to embrace that. Councilmember Nelson commended Council President Fraley-Monillas for her leadership on this issue. He a pointed out that the ordinance expands the ban on Styrofoam to a ban on non-compostable food service a containers. He has heard from some restaurants that compostable condiment packaging will be labor a, intensive, requiring that they fill condiment packaging individually. He wanted to ensure there had been , n sufficient input from the restaurants community. Mr. Fisher said exemptions can be granted in the c ordinance. Seattle has been a leader in this effort and recognizes there are challenges with some products w and until the technology is available, exemptions can be granted in ordinance. m E Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Heather Trim, Executive Director, Zero Waste Washington, a statewide organization working to make a trash obsolete, recognized Edmonds as a leader in this effort. Edmonds was the first in Washington to pass a plastic bag ordinance and now are taking leadership on another ordinance. The real benefit of this ordinance is it will help address food waste. The only disposal bin the Taco Time in Burien has is for compost. Taco Time has made a large effort to make everything compostable, allowing food and compostable products to be put in the compostable disposal bin to be commercial composted. Washington is an agricultural state so high quality compost is important. She said 17% of material going into landfills is food waste, half edible and half non -edible. The ordinance includes exemptions for materials that are prepackaged and come to the store presealed such as ketchup sachets. If ketchup were dispensed in the store, the condiment container would need to be compostable. She displayed a compostable cup stopper she found at Starbucks in Edmonds. She encouraged the Council to vote yes on the ordinance and continue its leadership in Washington. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.a Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4139, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BAN ON THE USE OF NON-COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS BY FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. ACTION ITEMS 1. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE STORM DIVISION VACTOR TRUCK Public Works Director Phil Williams displayed a photograph of the existing 2007vactor truck, explaining this is a regular replacement of the vehicle on 12-year schedule. The City has three vactor trucks, one each for water, sewer and street/storm. He displayed a photograph of the new vactor truck on a Freightliner chassis with a tag axle that allows it to pass inspection at the scales if necessary. This is a highly mechanical vehicle and carries up to 1500 gallons of water. The vehicle will be purchased through Owen Equipment in Portland. He reviewed: • Major changes between 2007 and 2019 vactors are: o Single engine, PTO/hydraulic driven vacuum fans o Vac on the go hydrostatic drive 0 5x5 boom o Hydro Excavation system Cost: $542,000 o Old vactor truck will be sold at auction for approximately $50,000-$75,000 used to offset cost Funding source: stormwater rates Councilmember Buckshnis asked why three vactor trucks are needed. Mr. Williams answered all three are > heavily used. The storm vactor is used year round; the sewer vactor is used to clean sewer pipes ahead of ° the video truck and the water division primarily uses the vactor for excavation and potholing. Each division a has a slightly different use but they are well used year round and could not be effectively shared. as COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO r AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PURCHASE (1) 2019 VACTOR w 2100I COMBINATION SEWER/STORM CLEANER TRUCK FROM OWEN EQUIPMENT THROUGH NJPA PURCHASING GROUP. CD Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the funding source. Mr. Williams answered stormwater rates that have been accumulated over 11 years to replace the existing vactor truck. Q MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 10. STUDY ITEM INTRODUCTION ON SMALL CELL WIRELESS AND ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC). DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING SMALL CELL STANDARDS INTO THE CITY'S WIRELESS CODE (ECDC 20.50) AND POSSIBLE INTERIM ORDINANCE City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City has a short timeframe to incorporate small cell standards into the City's wireless code due to federal regulatory action. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to get early policy feedback/guidance from the City Council to ensure the Council approves of the direction staff Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 14 Packet Pg. 19 4.2.a is taking in the development of the policy. An ordinance has not yet been drafted because staff first wanted to seek policy guidance from the Council. Mr. Taraday reviewed: • FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018, titled Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment o The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for the installation of small wireless facilities o January 14, 2019 — The Order goes into effect o April 14, 2019 —Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell reviewed: • What are small cell deployments? o Small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather o Streetlights, utility poles and slimline poles ■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transmit wireless signals to and from mobile devices ■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs operated by wireless carriers ■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signal for multiple wireless carries • Photograph of macro cell in Edmonds — Main Street o Macro antenna array o Equipment screened behind fence • Examples of small cell in other cities o Pole with antenna and equipment box o Standalone pole with antenna and equipment concealed Mr. Taraday explained the FCC has constrained the extent to which cities can regulate the aesthetic a appearance of small cell facilities. Not only is there a very short timeframe to adopt the regulations, there a also are limitation on the substance of those regulations. He reviewed the FCC's aesthetic requirements: as • Reasonable Ln T • No more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments io o Undergrounding Requirements - May be permissible under state law as a general matter. ■ Regulations cannot require that all small cell facilities be underground because they do not function underground E ■ Any undergrounding requirement that materially inhibits wireless service could be found to be preemptive by the federal regulations a • Objective • Published in advance Mr. Taraday displayed a map of small cell antenna spacing in the Long Beach waterfront area, relaying that industry need could place a small cell on every block. Although small cell antennas will improve service, there will be aesthetic impacts depending on the City's policy. Minimum spacing requirements can be upheld as long as they are consistent with other aesthetic regulations. Ms. McConnell displayed a map of existing macro site spacing in Edmonds. She reviewed staff s proposed location preferences for small cell antennas, noting locations outside of the right-of-way are preferred over locations within the right-of-way: Locate Outside the Right-of-WaX 1. Existing structure Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 15 Packet Pg. 20 4.2.a 2. Standalone pole Locate Within the Right-of-WaX 3. Existing street light pole or traffic light (hollow poles) 4. New standalone pole or street light 5. Existing PUD single-phase pole (installation on top of pole) 6. Existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space) 7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space) She displayed photographic examples of the proposed location preferences: Installations Outside of the Right -of -Way 1. Locate on existing structures (example at 4t1i & Main 2. SF Zoned property • Standalone pole within 5 feet of right- of -way; o Locate on same side of street as power lines; o Height limit 35 feet; • Other Zoned property — o Standalone pole consistent with zoning height • Rooftop placement (example on Puget Drive) W Right -of -ay Installations 3. Existing hollow streetlight pole or traffic signal light 4. New standalone pole or new street light • Custom designs — Sternberg model currently used in downtown Edmonds • Sternberg makes a model specific for wireless facilities 5. Installation single phase power pole • Antenna in line with pole • External conduit o • External equipment > 6. Installation on transmission pole n • Antenna in communications space g • External conduit • External equipment as Ln 7. Strand -mounted facilities • Installation on an existing pole w • Antenna n the communication space • External equipment E Ms. McConnell displayed photographs of clutter on existing wood poles. Future code updates will include working with carriers and the industry to better manage those systems. She displayed a photograph of Q equipment and wires, internal and external. Mr. Taraday reviewed the proposed project timeline: • January 8: Introduction to Council PPW Committee • January 9: Introduction to Planning Board • January 14: FCC Order goes into effect • January 15: Introduction to full Council • February 5: Public hearing and adoption of interim ordinance • February -March: Discussions at Planning Board, review interim ordinance and discuss refinements for small cell aesthetic regulations and bring back to Council • April 2 or sooner: Hearing before City Council • April 14: Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 16 Packet Pg. 21 4.2.a Councilmember Nelson asked if his definition of "not being an eyesore" was a sufficient aesthetic regulation. Mr. Taraday answered that was a good example of a regulation that would not be objective under the FCC guidance. Councilmember Nelson said that generally expresses his sentiment. Although his family uses wireless and he understands the need, the proposal prefers standalone over existing poles in the right-of-way. He asked how far apart the standalone poles would be, how many there would be and could they be designed to fit into the community. Mr. Taraday said ranking 7 is what staff is seeking Council feedback on. This is staff s thinking about the proposed policy but want to ensure the Council agrees standalone is better than locating on existing wood utility poles. To Councilmember Nelson's question about spacing, jurisdictions have the ability to place spacing requirement to ensure there are not new standalone poles 50 feet apart. Councilmember Nelson said his preference would be to maximize spacing and to have them on existing structures. He preferred not to create a pole simply to site a small cell. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Councilmember Nelson, and hoped whatever was on the outside of the building would be more aesthetic pleasing and smaller than what is located on the side of the building at 4t' & Main. Ms. McConnell advised that is a macro facility. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with the first two priorities and with regard to priority 3, asked if there could be a distinction made between a decorative light fixture like the ones on Main Street versus a streetlight pole in neighborhoods. Mr. Taraday said the Sternberg example is related to ranking 4 as it would not be an existing Sternberg; it would need to be a new, specialty Sternberg pole. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would be theoretically possible for a carrier to locate a small cell antenna on a Sternberg pole. Ms. McConnell said given there is a Sternberg pole option for wireless facilities, she did not foresee the ability to attach an antenna to an existing Sternberg pole. If there was a desire to locate a wireless facility where there is an existing Sternberg pole, it would need to be changed to the Sternberg pole that can accommodate a wireless facility. Councilmember Tibbott clarified he was opposed to any external antennas on existing Sternberg lights. Mr. Taraday said none of proposed rankings contemplate that scenario. Councilmember Tibbott requested the regulations make a distinction between a decorative light pole and a other light poles. Mr. Taraday did not envision an ordinance that allowed a modification to be made to an a, existing Sternberg pole. If a carrier wanted to locate in the area where an existing Sternberg pole was, they , n would need to replace it with a special purpose Sternberg pole that accommodates the small cell infrastructure inside. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the new Sternberg pole would match the others. Mr. w Taraday assumed if it were allowed, it would have to match. Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern that "assume" was objective. Mr. Taraday said on Main Street where a very clear, aesthetic pattern is already established, the regulations would be clear the pole would have to match the existing Sternberg pole. Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern ranking 3 did not make a distinction between a Sternberg pole and other poles. Mr. Taraday agreed that could be clarified. a Councilmember Tibbott asked how much staff trusted the companies that were producing the antennas to accommodate the City's interests. If the regulations are very objective, he would expect them to abide by the code, but to push the envelope. There are many examples in the City where there is a lot of clutter and cables, for example 76' & 196' where they almost obscure the signal lights. He personally did not trust the carriers to police those issues. Mr. Taraday said an objective, enforceable ordinance will be drafted that tells the industry what the policy makers want to see. The industry has been cooperative, but staff does not tend to rely on trust. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the long process when the Council considered regulations for cell towers. She agreed with not further cluttering already cluttered poles. She asked who paid for installation of the small cell antennas. Mr. Taraday answered the industry would pay all the installation costs including a new standalone pole if necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a small cell antenna was located on a building, would the carrier would pay for the antenna and seek the building owner's permission. Mr. Taraday answered if an antenna were located on private property, that would be between the carrier and the private property owner, but he assumed the carrier would pay for it. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to allowing small cell antennas on large buildings. Mr. Taraday said that is the first choice - existing structure outside the right-of-way which could be public or privately owned property. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the Council considered cell towers, options to camouflage were considered such as trees. Mr. Taraday said that is not being contemplated. Councilmember Mesaros commented the church he attends in Seattle has a macro tower in the steeple which provides good cell coverage for the neighbors as well as a revenue stream for church. The private property owner worked out the lease with the carrier. Councilmember Tibbott said in his neighborhood in the past, wires have been strung across the street to connect homes to services. When the service arrangement changed and those wires were no longer needed, the wires still remained. He suggested a cleanup effort where carriers removed those overhead wires. Mr. Taraday said staff will develop a companion ordinance that imposes similar aesthetic requirements on other facilities. Councilmember Tibbott commented it would be great if the wires and poles around Civic Field could be undergrounded. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification, at one point there was a sentiment expressed for any existing structure over any new standalone. He asked if 5, 6, and 7 were preferred over 4. Councilmembers answered no. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council still preferred 4 over 5, 6 and 7. Mayor Earling said he was on the Council when the Council had to react to cell towers; he was the only a Councilmember who voted against it. He encouraged the Council to maintain aesthetics in the community. a, LO 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 0 w Mayor Earling encouraged the community to participate in one or both of the Martin Luther King Day celebrations on Monday, January 21 at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, one in the morning that is more E family and youth oriented and another in the evening. 2 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Q Councilmember Mesaros noted although Martin Luther King Day is celebrated on January 21, today is his actual birthday. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Martin Luther King presentations at the ECA are at 10:00 a.m. (free admission) and 7:00 p.m. ($10 admission). Councilmember Teitzel reported his knee replacement surgery went well and he is healing quickly. He thanked the Council for accommodating his participation by phone; he will return next week. Councilmember Johnson expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to participate by phone. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 18 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 15, 2019 Page 19 Packet Pg. 24 as LO T r 0 W E n 2 Q 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #235025 through #235123 dated January 17, 2019 for $651,238.23 and wire payment of $37,913.97. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63647 through #63651 for $581,777.02, benefit checks #63652 through #63656 and wire payments of $599,750.86 for the pay period January 1, 2019 through January 15, 2019. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 01-17-19 wire 01-17-19 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 01-17-19 payroll summary 01-15-19 payroll benefits 01-15-19 Packet Pg. 25 4.3.a vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235025 1 /11 /2019 076911 DONOVAN, JAMES 235026 1/17/2019 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 235027 1/17/2019 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 235028 1/17/2019 071634 ALLSTREAM 235029 1/17/2019 070976 AMERESCO INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Ref000323371 UB Refund Cst #00196627 UB Refund Cst #00196627 411.000.233.000 Total 15-66999 RUSSIAN INTERPRETER COURT 1, RUSSIAN INTERPRETER COURT 1, 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total 16556 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST COW PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 17367 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST COW 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 17765 WWTP: 1/11/19 PEST CONTROL SE 1/11/19 PEST CONTROL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 15855832 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Tota I : 2013-030 A (1) CITY PROJECT - PH3HAV, LIGHTINi City Project - Ph3HAV, Lighting & 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Page 1 a� L 3 c .y Amoun o a m U m 230.0( 230.0( ui m U 185.4' 185.4; c �a 137.8E o �a a 137.8f U 73.0( c 7a 7.5, c 356.2f a a Q rn 989.6� ti 10.2� N E 10.3� n 1,010.31 U c a� E t 70.6- Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235029 1/17/2019 070976 AMERESCOINC (Continued) 235030 1/17/2019 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 615244 666572 693543 PO # Description/Account City Project - Ph3HAV, Lighting & 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total ENGLISH.2019 APWA RENEWAL English.2019 APWA Renewal 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 HAUSS.APWA 2019 RENEWAL Hauss.APWA 2019 Renewal 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 DELILLA.APWA 2019 RENEWAL DeLilla.APWA 2019 Renewal 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Total 235031 1/17/2019 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 16576 PM: YOST WAVE GRATES PM: YOST WAVE GRATES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 235032 1/17/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991057539 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.3.a Page: 2 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 2,364.2E u 2,434.8, N m 227.0E r m c 227.0( c �a 227.0( o 681.0( �a a E 730.8� 0 75.2£ ii 806.1 , c L Q a Q 1.6- ti 6.1- 0 6.1- E M 6.1- c 6.1- E t U 6.0£ Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235032 1/17/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1991057540 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1991061830 WWTP: 1/9/19 UNIFORMSJOWELS Mats/Towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1991061831 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 3 W L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 0.1; U L 0.6: N 0.6: v 0.6: - c 0.6< c 0.6, f° 0 L �a 5.6E E 17.3, 0.5� 0 Ta 1.7E a a Q 56.3E c� ti 3.5( 0 5.8- E 0.3E c 51.5E t U �a Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235032 1/17/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 0 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 as 5.3' -0 1991061832 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS U FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS L 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.3" 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.8" Total: 213.8E U 235033 1/17/2019 001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES 67195 AWC DRUG & ALCOHOL MEMBER c 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 367.5( 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP �a 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 551.2E o 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 428.7E a 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 122.5( 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 61.2E o 2019 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP �a 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 428.7E o Total: 1,960.0( a Q 235034 1/17/2019 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 287283883350 WIRELESS SERVICE FOR AlRCARE Mobile Aircards r' 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 46.7E Total : 46.7E 0 235035 1/17/2019 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 105663 UB OUTSOURCING AREA PRINTIN( UB Outsourcing Area Printing #200 ca 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 91.6z UB Outsourcing Area Printing #200 c 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 91.6z E UB Outsourcing Area Printing #200 U 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 91.6z Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235035 1/17/2019 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 235036 1/17/2019 075418 BALL, CHRISTINA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Postage 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 Postage 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 105729 UB OUTSOURCING ARE PRINTING UB Outsourcing are Printing #700 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing are Printing #700 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing are Printing #700 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 Postage 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 Total BID-100 BID/ED! CONTRACTED FOR ELF Of 4.3.a Page: 5 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 218.5- u 218.5" N 218.5( v 9.2E m c 9.2E m c 9.2E f° 0 L �a 23.3E E 69.5E 2.3E 0 0 2.3E a a 2.3 m Q rn 23.3E ti 23.3� o V) 69.5E 'E g 69.5E 1,244.1; E t U co Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235036 1/17/2019 075418 BALL, CHRISTINA 235037 235038 235039 1/17/2019 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 1/17/2019 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 33993 IiMiZZ081 1/17/2019 075734 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & CRISIS CON 2018 SERVICE PO # Description/Account BID/Ed! contracted services to perfon 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 01 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 01 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total AD DESIGN FOR CREATIVE DISTRI Ad design for creative district ad 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 2018 SERVICES TO EDMONDS PD 1/9/18 PEER SUPPORT MEETING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 1/16/18 PEER SUPPORT MEETING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 3/23/18 PEER SUPPORT PRESENT. 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4/5/18 PEER SUPPORT PRESENT. 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4/7/18 PEER SUPPORT PRESENT. 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4/19/18 PEER SUPPORT PRESENT. 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4/20/18 PEER SUPPORT PRESENT. 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 7/10/18 PEER SUPPORT MEETING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 10/16/18 PEER SUPPORT MEETINC 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 12/19/18 CISD MEETING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4.3.a Page: 6 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 200.0( u 200.0( .L N m 106.4� 106.4< m c as 2,885.0( 2,885.0( o 0 �a a 75.0( .E �a U 112.5( o �a 75.0( c a 75.0( Q 75.0( r' ti 75.0( 0 75.0( E 150.0( U c 112.5( E t U 150.0( Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 235039 1/17/2019 075734 075734 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & CRISIS COI (Continued) 235040 1/17/2019 071348 BERGERABAM 325428 235041 1/17/2019 073250 BMI GENERAL LICENSING 235042 1/17/2019 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 235043 1/17/2019 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 33707207 Description/Account Total E4MB.SERVICES THRU 1/11/19 E4MB.Services thru 1/11/19 332.000.64.594.76.65.41 Total 2019 MUSIC LICENSE FEE 2019 MUSIC LICENSE FEE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 330601 PW YARD - SAND & GRAVEL PW Yard - Sand & Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 PW Yard - Sand & Gravel 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Yard - Sand & Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 PW Yard - Sand & Gravel 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total Total ; 94014756 STORM DRAIN PROJECT - GRAVEL Storm Drain Project - Gravel 422.000.72.594.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.594.31.31.00 4.3.a Page: 7 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 975.0( 0 U d L_ 1,520.5E 1,520.51 m z 358.0( m 358.0( a0i c �a 1,225.9, o �a 1,225.9, a E 1,225.9, 4- 1,225.9, 0 126.2, a a 126.2 1 Q rn 126.2 1 ti 126.2 , 5,408.7E E c 299.5- E t 29.9E Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235043 1/17/2019 018495 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY (Continued) Total : 329.4E 235044 1/17/2019 067446 CEM CORPORATION 605161 WWTP: DRYING PADS Drying Pads 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 871.2( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 49.6( 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 94.8z Total : 1,015.6z 235045 1/17/2019 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12181029 HELIUM HELIUM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.6E Total : 17.6E 235046 1/17/2019 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20181653 PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEES) PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEES) 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 9,980.0( Total : 9,980.0( 235047 1/17/2019 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20181651 PERMIT FEES -WATERFRONT REDE PERMIT FEES -WATERFRONT REDE 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 185.0( Tota I : 185.0( 235048 1/17/2019 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 3483 E4FD.2018 SHARE OF COSTS E4FD.2018 Share of Costs 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 13,600.0( Total : 13,600.0( 235049 1/17/2019 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000 WWTP: 11/6/18 - 1/9/19 FLOWMETE 11/6/18 - 1/9/19 FLOW METER #8791 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 21.1- Page: 8 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235049 1/17/2019 035160 035160 CITY OFSEATTLE 235050 1/17/2019 076914 CM DESIGN GROUP LLC 235051 1/17/2019 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 235052 1/17/2019 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 235053 1/17/2019 076913 DOCKREY, MATTHEW Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 18054 55037 19-3904 1 /15/2019 235054 1/17/2019 076790 DUNGENESS CONSTRUCTION CORP E5FD.Pmt 4 235055 1/17/2019 007253 DUNN LUMBER PO # Description/Account Total E9CA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/18 E9CA.Services thru 12/31/18 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E9CA.Services thru 12/31/18 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 E9CA.Services thru 12/31/18 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 Total BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADS DEi Business recruitment ads for Decemk 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total 1/2/19 & 1/8/19 CITY COUNCIL MINI 1/2/19 & 1/8/19 CITY COUNCIL MINI_ 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total PSA: TEMPORARY ART ON DAYTOI PSA: TEMPORARY ART ON DAYTOI 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total E5FD.PMT 4 THRU 12/31/18 E5FD.Pmt 4 thru 12/31/18 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 E5FD.Ret 4 422.000.223.400 Total 5925899 PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027 PM SUPPLIES: CEMENT, STUDS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 9 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 21.11 0 U d L_ 4,808.6� N 8,815.4- y t U 17,580.9( 31,205.0( c d c �a 400.0( — 400.0( �a a E 301.0( 301.0( o �a 0 L 100.0( a 100.0( Q rn ti 14,471.1� c -723.5E . 13,747.6: c aD E 150.1, U �a Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235055 1/17/2019 007253 DUNN LUMBER 235056 1/17/2019 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6077808 PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027 PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027: COI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 1-91734 PM: MOTOR OIL PM: MOTOR OIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 235057 1/17/2019 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 01102019 235058 1/17/2019 064827 EDMONDS POLICE EXPLORERS 12312018 235059 1/17/2019 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 DivCommGrant1210327 235060 1/17/2019 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 235061 1/17/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2019-01 Total : DONATION TO MLK EVENT AT THE Donation to The Lift Every Voice LegE 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 Total HOLIDAY MARKET DONATION FOR Holiday market donation for Edmond: 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT A Diversity Commission 2018 grant for 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 Total 01/19 RECREATION SERVICES COf 01/19 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 Total IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE 4.3.a Page: 10 Page: 10 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235061 1/17/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 0 IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, u 5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL L INTERURBAN TRAIL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, Total: 102.4' v 235062 1/17/2019 066004 ESRI 93573858 ARCGIS MAINTENANCE 01/01/2019 ArcGIS Maintenance 01/01/2019 - c 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 14,385.2( (D ArcGIS Maintenance 01/01/2019 - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 532.7E ArcGIS Maintenance 01/01/2019 - o 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 532.7� ArcGIS Maintenance 01/01/2019 - `d a 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 532.7E 10.3% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,481.6E u 10.3% Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 54.8E 10.3% Sales Tax o 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 54.8E a 10.3% Sales Tax Q 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 54.8, Total: 17,629.81, 235063 1/17/2019 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU52327 PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY KNIFE, SHC PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY KNIFE, SHC N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.2E E 10.3% Sales Tax R 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 U 6.1( }; Total: 65.3E E 235064 1/17/2019 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 6832846 PM SUPPLIES: PIPE, WATER TEST U PM SUPPLIES: PIPE, WATER TEST Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235064 1/17/2019 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 235065 1/17/2019 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota I : 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-771-4741 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/II 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/II 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.3.a Page: 12 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 51.5, 'D U m 5.1E L 56.6 , N Y V m 267.0E m c 267.0E � c �a 6.4, o 24.4' a 24.4' 24.4 0 24.4- o L a a 24.4' Q rn 135.1( 130.6E . �a U 71.1, y E t U 138.9E Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235065 1/17/2019 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 0 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC U 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 m 26.4( .L Total: 1,164X N 235066 1/17/2019 072515 GOOGLE INC BID-3549591154 BID/ED! GOOGLE VAULT RENEWAL m BID/Ed! Google vault for 2019 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 250.0( 10.3% Sales Tax c 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 25.7.E Total: 275.7E c 235067 1/17/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY 11282260 WWTP: UV LAMP BULB & FILTER F, �a — UV Lamp Bulb & Filter for DQ3 Water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 617.0( a 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 63.5E •E Total: 680.5E U 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1015438 FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES 4- 0 Fac Maint Shop - Supplies c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 56.3E a 10.0% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.6E 1020651 FAC MAINT UNIT 2 - SUPPLIES r' Fac Maint Unit 2 - Supplies ti 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 64.8, 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.4E E 1083341 WATER - PARTS AND SUPPLIES M Water - Parts and Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 130.7, 10.0% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.0E 15640 PW - SUPPLIES Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1570467 CITY PARK BLDG - SUPPLIES City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1572225 LOG CABIN - SUPPLIES Log Cabin - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2024206 FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2051655 SEWER - SUPPLIES Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2072196 STORM - TV TRUCK - SUPPLIES Storm - TV Truck - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 23164 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.3.a Page: 14 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 9.3( u L 0.9: N m 19.7, v 1.91 c a� c 15.0� 0 1.5- `>+ M a E 69.3( .� 6.9< 0 �a 0 L 7.91 a Q 0.8( rn ti 19.8, c 1.91 M c 33.8, E t 3.3£ L) Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2583053 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3052801 STORM - SUPPLIES Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4012108 ROADWAY - SUPPLIES Roadway - Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 4012120 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4013527 STORM - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES Storm - TV Truck Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4015036 FAC MAINT TRUCK 5 - SUPPLIES Fac Maint Truck 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4025217 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 15 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 70.5E 7.0( m 25.6E m c 2.51 M c �a 9.7, 0 L 0.91 a E 23.9E u 4- 0 2.4( > 0 L Q a 65.7- Q rn 6.5, 0 45.8( 2 4.5f U c 63.0, E U �a Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 4026500 4073010 4085067 5013306 5014857 5021420 5025034 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 STORM - SUPPLIES Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 STORM - SUPPLIES Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 PS - VETERANS PARK - SUPPLIES PS - Veterans Park - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 TRAFFIC - SIGNAL CABINETS - SU Traffic - Signal Cabinets - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.3.a Page: 16 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 6.3( 'D U m 27.3( N 2.7z v 30.6- c d 3.0E �a 0 50.64 `>, M a 5.0E U 4- 119.0( 0 0 11.9( o a a Q 42.6: ti 4.2E 0 190.5 - �a U 19.0f a� E t 56.0- um Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 0 m 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.6( u 5087638 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES L Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.9E 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.0( v 5233006 FAC MAINT RETURN Fac Maint Return 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -39.9 1 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -4.0( 5573142 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 0 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.9, a 10.0% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.0( .Fu 5580962 CHAMBERS - SUPPLIES Chambers - Supplies 0 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.5- > 10.0% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.9,1 a 5581027 CITY PARK BLDG - SUPPLIES Q City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.4, 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.7z c 570578 TRAFFIC - PAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES Traffic - Paint Truck Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 M 40.8 � Z 10.0% Sales Tax +: 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 c 4.0� aD 6255470 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES E t Fac Maint Shop Supplies U �a Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 18 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 0 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 as 22.0( -0 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 m 2.2( .L 6572972 CITY PARK BLDG - SUPPLIES City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.8 � 10.0% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.6� 6970487 FAC MAINT RETURN Fac Maint Return 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -20.21 10.3% Sales Tax sa 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -2.0f 0 7014619 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.& 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.7E u 7020168 PW - SUPPLIES 0 PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.3( o 10.0% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.1; Q 7020172 FAC - SUPPLIES FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.3: 10.0% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.3< 7023567 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Shop Supplies U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.5� 10.0% Sales Tax W 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.9E E 7080114 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES U �a Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Boys & Girls Club - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7090191 CITY PARK BLDG - SUPPLIES City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7970011 FAC MAINT SHOP STOVE REPLACE Fac Maint Shop Stove Replacement 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 8010029 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8022168 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8022221 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8023431 TRAFFIC - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES Traffic - TV Truck Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.3.a Page: 19 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 23.6- u L 2.3E N m z 37.3< U 3.7< c a� c 480.9E 0 49.5, >+ M a E 21.9E .� 2.2( 0 0 0 L 58.9- a Q 5.8� ti 8.9z o 0.8E c 7.5E E t 0.7E L) Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 8027245 MUSEUM WINDOWS SUPPLIES Museum Windows Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8090039 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8093133 TRAFFIC - TV TRUCK PARTS Traffic - TV Truck Parts 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 81829 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9020922 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9023301 TRAFFIC - PAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES Traffic - Paint Truck Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9027062 VETERANS PLAZA - SUPPLIES Veterans Plaza - Supplies 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 10.0% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 20 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 47.5� 4.7E Y m z U 51.91 m c 5.2( c �a 32.8E o L 3.2� a E 56.3E 4- 0 5.6, > 0 L Q a 41.4E Q rn 4.1E 0 34.7E 2 3.4£ U c aD 49.2, E U �a Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235069 1/17/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 0 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 as 4.9, -0 9027074 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES U City Hall - Supplies L 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 109.0( 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.9( 9082033 SEWER - LS - SUPPLIES Sewer - LS - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 185.6' c 10.0% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.5E Total: 3,075.55 sa 235070 1/17/2019 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0550922143 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY 0 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY a 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.61 E Total: 111.6! 235071 1/17/2019 076912 HORN, BEVIN 2001508.009 REFUND: GYMNASTICS CLASS c REFUND: GYMNASTICS CLASS �a 001.000.239.200 72.2( o Total: 72.2( a a 235072 1/17/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3195442 OFFICE SUPPLIES Q COFFEE CREAMER 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 16.3" ti FILE FOLDERS 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 30.31 MANILA FOLDERS N E 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 14.9E 'R EXPANDING FILE POCKETS 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 57.4z KLEENEX E 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.8� SHARED COPY PAPER Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235072 1/17/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 235073 235074 3197033 3199159 1/17/2019 065980 INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SIN003843 1/17/2019 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 5222 PO # Description/Account 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 SHARED COPY PAPER 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 SHARED COPY PAPER 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 PLASTIC COMB BINDING, CARD ST Fellowes 19-ring comb binding, paper 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 WWTP: TRASH CAN LINERS (2 MIL TRASH CAN LINERS (2 MIL BLACK) 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total WATER/SEWER - WONDERWARE Water/Sewer - Wonderware Software 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 Water/Sewer - Wonderware Software 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC 4.3.a Page: 22 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 57.3, 'D U m 57.3, 57.3, m t 19.2E u 5.9( (D a� 5.9E �a 0 42.5E >% M a 4.3E U 4- 69.2E 0 �a 7.1E o 456.3E a Q rn 2,561.4E 0 2,561.4, 263.8 u 263.8E (D 5,650.61 E U �a Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235074 1/17/2019 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS (Continued) Jan-19 Fiber Optics Internet Connecti 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 51.5( Total: 551.5( 235075 1/17/2019 075265 KBA INC 3004309 ElCA.SERVCES THRU 12/31/18 ElCA.Services thru 12/31/18 112.000.68.595.33.65.41 59.2.E ElCA.Services thru 12/31/18 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 17.6, ElCA.Services thru 12/31/18 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 18.9< Tota I : 95.8( 235076 1/17/2019 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 12132018-01 CITY CAR WASH City Car Wash 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.0E Total : 5.0( 235077 1/17/2019 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 1053717 PM: CEMETERY LAWN MOWER PM: CEMETERY LAWN MOWER 130.000.64.536.50.35.00 1,129.9� 10.3% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.35.00 116.3� Total : 1,246.31 235078 1/17/2019 060909 MACHADO, DAVID L BC54395 SICK LEAVE BUY BACK SICK LEAVE BUY BACK 5/22/18-7/7i 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 1,102.1 E BG54395 SICK LEAVE BUYBACK SICK LEAVE BUY BACK FOR 4/22/1 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 1,005.0( Total : 2,107.1; Page: 23 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 24 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235079 1/17/2019 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1CA.Pmt 17 ElCA.PMT 17 THRU 9/30/18 E1CA.Pmt 17 thru 9/30/18 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 -0.0- E1CA/E5DA.Pmt 17 E1CA/E5DA.PMT 17 THRU 9/30/18 E1CA.Pmt 17 thru 9/30/18 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 28,649.4, ESDA.Pmt 17 thru 9/30/18 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 700.0( Total : 29,349.4E 235080 1/17/2019 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 74528 INV#74528 - EDMONDS PD 1 HR @ $189.00 - TOW GREEN 199; 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 189.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.4, Tota I : 208.4 , 235081 1/17/2019 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 2 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,900.0( Total: 8,900.0( 235082 1/17/2019 075913 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES 56090017 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 12/28/18 E4MB.Services thru 12/28/18 332.000.64.594.76.65.41 117.5( Total : 117.5( 235083 1/17/2019 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-38 ESKA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/18 ESKA.Services thru 12/31/18 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 9,545.5, 18-2194-8 EBGA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/18 EBGA.Services thru 12/31/18 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 11,377.0( Total : 20,922.5: 235084 1/17/2019 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 1 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, Page: 24 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235084 1/17/2019 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING (Continued) 235085 1/17/2019 075881 NORRIS, KENNETH 431327A 431327B PO # Description/Account Tasks 1 - 4: Parks Project Mgmt and 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Task 5: Engineering Dept Tasks 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 Total CPR/FIRST AID TRAINING - 2018 DECEMBER FIRST AID/CPR 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 FIRST AID/CPR TRAINING - JANUAI 1/8/19 & 1/10/19 TRAININGS 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Total 235086 1/17/2019 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 880 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Planning Board Minutes 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Total 235087 1/17/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 254266282001 INV#254266282001 ACCT#9052043, 888603 STAPLER, SMART TOUCH E 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 765798WIREBOUND MEMO BOOK 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 307397 PAD PERFORATED CAN. LP 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 305706 PAD PERFORATED 8.5X11 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 182733 PEN FLAIR W/POINT 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 517235 PEN BALL RETRACT, FLEX 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 25 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 1,937.5( u 125.0( 2,062.5( m v 578.0( a� 600.0( 1,178.0( o 0 �a a 234.0( •E 234.0( U 4- 0 Ta 21.9E a a 7.5E Q rn 12.0E ti 14.0, E 9.5, n U 34.4z c a� E 2.2; U �a Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235087 1/17/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 235088 1/17/2019 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Tota I : 2-382242 FLEET RETURNS DATED 2/17 Fleet Returns dated 2/17 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-428829 UNIT 123 - BRAKE PADS Unit 123 - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-429051 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-449164 UNIT 95 - BRAKE PADS Unit 95 - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-453647 UNIT 413 - CALIPERS Unit 413 - Calipers 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-453656 UNIT 413 - CALIPERS Unit 413 - Calipers 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2-453691 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 4.3.a Page: 26 Page: 26 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 235088 1/17/2019 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : 235089 1/17/2019 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 11900064 E61DA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/18 E6DA.Services thru 12/31/18 112.000.68.595.33.65.41 Total 235090 1/17/2019 027450 PAWS PAWS 12/2018 ANIMAL SHELTERING - DEC 2018 - 9 ANIMALS @ $181.00 = $1629.00 - 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Total 235091 1/17/2019 074793 PETDATA INC 7286 INV#7286 - EDMONDS PD - DEC 20 724 - 1 YEAR LICENCES @ $3.90 = 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1 REPLACEMENT TAG GEE @ $3.9( 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1 LATE FEE COLLECTED @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Total 235092 1/17/2019 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.41.50 Total 235093 1/17/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 122 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Total 235094 1/17/2019 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY SELECTION PC 4372 INV 4372 EDMONDS PD - DECEMBI PRE -EMPLOY EXAM MITSUI 4.3.a Page: 27 Page: 27 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235094 1/17/2019 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY SELECTION PC (Continued) 235095 1/17/2019 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 19-0010 235096 1/17/2019 076493 BEDSIDE CONSTRUCTION LLC ESKA.Pmt 9 235097 1/17/2019 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1901032 235098 1/17/2019 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 3-0197-0800897 PO # Description/Account 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 PRE -EMPLOY EXAM MACOMBER 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total COURT SECURITY 01/02/2019 COURT SECURITY 01/02/2019 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 Total ESKA.PMT 9 THRU 12/31/18 ESKA.Pmt 9 thru 12/31/18 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 Total HARBOR SQUARE EASEMENT-EDN HARBOR SQUARE EASEMENT-EDN 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 Total FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 4.3.a Page: 28 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 400.0( 'D r U d 400.0( .L 800.0( N V m z U 440.0( 440.0( c d c �a 105,133.9, — 105,133.9: �a a E 3,235.0( 3,235.0( o �a 0 205.2z a Q rn 33.7( ti 128.0z o 128.0z 128.0z aD 128.0z t U �a Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 29 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235098 1/17/2019 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) 0 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 as 128.0< -0 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 204.9" 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL d 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.9E U Total : 1,155.95 m 235099 1/17/2019 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 635867 INV#635867 CUST#1733 - EDMONE c CCI-53651-CF3 - 9MM 124 GR TMJ " 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,473.5, 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 0 151.7, Total: 1,625.25 a 235100 1/17/2019 076905 SAUNDERS, ASHLEY 3040 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT E TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR M) fd 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 2,000.0( o Total: 2,000.0( 0 235101 1/17/2019 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1282164 PM: PLANTS FOR OLYMPIC BEACH 0 PM: PLANTS FOR OLYMPIC BEACH a a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 49.9� Q 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.0( ti T-1282340 PM: WINTERGOLD PINE PLANTS PM: WINTERGOLD PINE PLANTS c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 304.9, 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 _M 30.4� Z Total: 390.4( c aD 235102 1/17/2019 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000492914 EBCB/EBCD/EBCE.SERVICES THRL E t EBCB.Services thru 12/31/18 U �a Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235102 1/17/2019 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS 235103 1/17/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CB.Services thru 12/31/18 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CB.Services thru 12/31/18 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CB.Services thru 12/31/18 112.000.68.542.30.48.00 E8CB.Services thru 12/31/18 125.000.68.542.30.48.00 E8CB.Services thru 12/31/18 126.000.68.542.30.48.00 E8CD.Services thru 12/31/18 421.000.74.542.30.41.00 E8CD.Services thru 12/31/18 421.000.74.542.30.48.00 E8CE.Services thru 12/31/18 423.000.75.542.30.41.00 E8CE.Services thru 12/31/18 423.000.75.542.30.48.00 Total : 2002-0255-4 WWTP: 12/5/18-1/3/19 FLOWMETEF 12/5/18-1/3/19 FLOW METER 2400 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 200326460 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2006-5085-1 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201383270 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO 4.3.a Page: 30 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 473.1 ' 'D r U d 864.5E 1,725.7E m 19,629.5, v 35,869.81 c a� 71,598.5, �a 333.2', o L �a 13,824.6E a E 186.3 7,729.9< o 152,235.5i > 0 L a a Q ti 20.0< c E 24.2E c a� 30.0E E U �a Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 235103 1/17/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 0 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 as 19.4E -0 201790003 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH L 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.8, 202114484 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL d 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.6( U 202250635 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.3, 205184385 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV sa 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 27.6" p 220547574 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 L-, TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 84.4( E Total : 317.8( 'ji z 235104 1/17/2019 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2018-4827 INV 2018-4827 EDMONDS PRISONE c 413.67 BASE RATE HOUSING DAYS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 40,841.6z c 68.25 BOOKINGS a 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 8,286.9- Q 30.17 MED/SPECIALTY PREM. DAY: v 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 rn 1,711.8E 34.33 MENTAL HEALTH PREM. DAY; 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4,702.81 c 12.75 VIDEO COURT HOURS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,717.4, .E Total: 57,260.65 235105 1/17/2019 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 74050 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES c PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 633.0E U ILLEGAL DUMPING Q Page: 31 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235105 1/17/2019 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 235106 1/17/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 235107 1/17/2019 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 235108 1/17/2019 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Tota I : 104757 WWTP: 12/2018 ROLLOFF ASH DIc 12/2018 Ash disposal & taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 Total 66159/4 WWTP: JCASTRO UNIFORM ALLOV JCASTRO UNIFORM ALLOW. -EVER 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 66356/4 WWTP: JEANNE MCKENZIE-PARTII Partial Uniform Allowance Purchase 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Tota I : L129017 12-18 AUDIT FEES 12-18 Audit Fees 001.000.39.514.20.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 111.000.68.543.30.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 421.000.74.534.80.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 423.000.75.535.80.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 12-18 Audit Fees 511.000.77.548.68.51.00 4.3.a Page: 32 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 5.0( -0 638.0( m L_ N 2,241.8 - y 2,241.8, m c d 236.2, -a c �a 24.3< — 0 �a a 63.8' 6.5; 330.9: c �a 0 a 155.7( Q 4.6( r' ti 56.7( 0 30.4z E 80.1 < c 21.0( E t U 8.0, Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235108 1/17/2019 039775 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 235109 1/17/2019 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 235110 235111 235112 235113 1/17/2019 071666 TETRA TECH INC 1/17/2019 075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC 1/17/2019 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 99269 51395527 51398208 196295 113058 1/17/2019 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 8120150 PO # Description/Account Total : HISTORICAL CITY CALENDAR (201! 2000 Historical City 2019 Calendars 014.000.62.557.20.49.00 Total E8CC.SERVICES THRU 11/30/18 E8CC.Services thru 11/30/18 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CC.Services thru 11/30/18 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CC.Services thru 11/30/18 422.000.72.542.30.41.00 E8CC.SERVICES THRU 12/28/18 E8CC.Services thru 12/28/18 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CC.Services thru 12/28/18 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 E8CC.Services thru 12/28/18 422.000.72.542.30.41.00 Total E4FE.SERVICES THRU 12/28/18 E4FE.Services thru 12/28/18 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 Total MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWIDE Jan-19 Maintenance on HP PagewidE 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.3.a Page: 33 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 356.55 0 U d L_ 5,532.6( 5,532.6( m 17,518.9z m c d 4,379.7z c �a 9,911.8" — 0 �a a 9,843.8, 2,460.9E 0 8,584.5E 0 52,699.8: c L Q a Q 20,771.2z 20,771.2z ti 193.0E M 193.W Z c a� E t 60.2( U Q Page: 33 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235113 1/17/2019 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR (Continued) 235114 235115 235116 235117 1/17/2019 064972 VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER 010719 1/17/2019 075155 WALKER MACY LLC 1/17/2019 073472 WAPRO 1/17/2019 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS P3282.04-8 1632 1635 1840 PO # Description/Account UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Total PRE-EMPLOYEMENT EXAMS CIVIL SERVICE PRE -EMPLOYMENT 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 Total CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 125.000.64.594.76.65.41 Total INV 1632 2019 WAPRO MEMBERSF 2019 MEMBERSHIP - C THOMPSOI\ 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 INV 1635 2019 WAPRO MEMBERSF 2019 WAPRO MEMBERSHIP - BROP 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 INV 1840 - COLLINS 2019 MEMBER; 2019 MEMBERSHIP - COLLINS 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 Total 11005500 PM: CLEANING SUPPLIES PM: CLEANING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11007498 PM: SUPPLIES: BATH TISSUE, SCO PM: SUPPLIES: BATH TISSUE, SCO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 34 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 60.2( u 60.2( 180.6( m v 694.0( 694.0( c �a 25,111.0, 25,111.0, a E U 25.0( c �a 25.0( a a Q 25.0( r' 75.0( ti 0 88.0( 9.0E aD E z 1,284.3, Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 35 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235117 1/17/2019 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 132.2f Tota I : 1,513.6E 235118 1/17/2019 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7592 CITY CLERKS - COPY PAPER 4- CASES OF X9000 LETTER COPY 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 141.4( 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.5E Total : 155.9E 235119 1/17/2019 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2018-EDM-DEC CONSULTING Consulting - Doug's Mazda Fire 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 661.3( Total: 661.3( 235120 1/17/2019 076625 WINDWARD ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 16210/16211 WINDWARD NOVEMBER TASK 1 & Windward Task 1 & 3 Field Work 001.000.11.511.60.41.00 4,834.9" 16276 WINDWARD DECEMBER TASK 1 FII Windward Task 1 Field Work 001.000.11.511.60.41.00 1,523.7- Total : 6,358.6: 235121 1/17/2019 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB81015099 E1CA.INSPECTION SERVICES E1CA.Inspection Services 112.000.68.595.33.65.41 230.2E Total: 230.2E 235122 1/17/2019 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR 01-10-2019 YAKIMA EDMONDS PD INMATE HOUSING & 50 HOUSING DAYS (3 INMATES) 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,992.5( INMATE MEDS - NOV 2018 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 619.9, Tota I : 3,612.4 , Page: 35 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 01 /17/2019 8:39:31 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235123 1/17/2019 073079 ZONES INC 98 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 98 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account K11930130101 INV#K11930130101 CUST#0058931- LB3663 BROTHER STANDARD - THI 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Tota I : Bank total Total vouchers 4.3.a Page: 36 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 1,065.4( u L 109.7z 1,175.1z m 651,238M 651,238.2: c c �a 0 L Q U 4- 0 0 L Q Q Q CD r r r 0 I_ 2 V a 0 E U Y Q Page: 36 Packet Pg. 61 4.3.b vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0091.18 US BANK - DEC 2018 JOB POSTING - RANGER II 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 BAREFOOT STUDENT JOB POSTIN 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 0091.19 US BANK - DEC 2018 PUBLIC WORKS WEBCAM 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 PUBLIC WORKS WEBCAM 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 PUBLIC WORKS WEBCAM 422.000.72.531.90.35.00 PUBLIC WORKS WEBCAM 111.000.68.542.31.35.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES - HR 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1558.18 JABRA HEADSETS, SURFACE GO, I Microsoft Store - Surface Go, Cover, 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Amazon - Cable Matters Power exten 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" f 001.000.61.557.20.35.00 Amazon - TRENDnet Gigabit Power c 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 Facto ryOutl etSto re.co m - Jabra PRO! 512.000.31.594.18.64.00 CDW-G - APC Smart UPS 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Samsung 590 series 117.100.64.573.20.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel Compute Stick C 117.100.64.573.20.35.00 Newegg.com - APC ES BE350U 12V Page: 1 m L 3 c ea Amoun 00 0 a m 90.0( m =a 50.0( Y m t 13.5E m c 13.5E (D 13.5E 13.5E �a a 99.6E E .ii U 1,150.4, o R 134.5" p L a 242.6z Q rn 30.6E r` 1,410.0E c m L 468.3, '3 408.1( E 285.5� U �a a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 Doublecros - reimbursement for purcf 001.000.369.91.000.00 StuartMearn - reimbursement for 001.000.369.91.000.00 1558.19 SURFACE PRO 6, BARRACUDA, NL Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" f 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC Barebone s, 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Logitech MK520 Wirel 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Samsung 970EVO Int( 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 CDW-G - Microsoft Surface Pro 6, 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 CDW-G - APC Smart UPS 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Barracuda Message Archiver & E-mal 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Newegg.com - StarTech PXTR1013 3 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 CDW-G - Microsoft Complete Accider 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1937.18 GOOD TO GO - FLEET Good To Go - Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Amazon - Unit E158SD Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Amazon - Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Good to Go - Unit 197 4.3.b Page: 2 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 136.9E 3.9( =a 40.0( ui Y m t 242.6z m 2,321.3E 190.2E 706.4E �a a 2,268.9E E 457.7E 0 7,546.5, 0 55.A a a Q 34. A M 313.3" 0 m 30.0( 3 110.11 E 466.9- �a Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Good to Go - Unit 796 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Amazon - Unit 47 Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Lowes - Fleet Shop Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 Lowes - Fleet Shop - Ladder 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 Zoro Tools - Unit 37 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1937.19 HOME DEPOT - UNIT 111 - PARTS Home Depot - Unit 111 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2519.18 INV#2519.18 - POLICE #1 - EDMONI FEDEX - 773945545390 -WSP TOXI( 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX - 773944976409 - WSP CRIB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3314.18 INV#3314.18 01/07/2019 - LAWLESE: UPS - SHIPPING COST FOR 3 BOX[ 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 LANDS END - 470681 CV1 - THERM/ 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 MCDONALDS - FOOD PROVIDED F, 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 QFC - OJ PROVIDED FOR OFFICEF 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 PAGLIACCI PIZZA - FOOD PROVIDE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 STARBUCKS COFFEE #3232 COFF 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 CANVA - MO SVC CHARGE - 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 4.3.b Page: 3 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 16.6E 11.7E =a 20.8( ui Y m 66.2( 165.4( m c a� 166.0E c �a 11.4z �a a 17.4< .E R U 19.9Z o R 0 469.1( a a Q 320.5 , " rn 126.0,CD ti 7.9E m L 73.3E 3 c a� 37.3� E t 12.9E Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 3314.19 INV#3314.19 01/07/2019 - LAWLESS BUSHNELLS MO CHARGE DATE OP 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 3355.18 OFFICE DEPOT - SEWER - TV TRUI Office Depot - Sewer - TV Truck Print, 422.000.72.531.40.35.00 3535.18 AMAZON - PW ADMIN - DESK HEAT Amazon - PW Admin - Desk Heater 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 Amazon - Water/Sewer - Varidesk for 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 Amazon - Water/Sewer - Varidesk for 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 Amazon - Water/Sewer - Monitor Star 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 Amazon - Water/Sewer - Monitor Star 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 3535.19 COVICH-W ILLIAMS - FLEET - PART; Covich-Williams - Fleet - Parts Invoice 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4519.18 AMAZON - FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Amazon - Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Rockler - Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4519.19 EVACUUMSTORE.COM - FAC MAIN' Evacuumstore.com - Fac Maint - 2 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 NEEC- Fac Maint - BOC II Course - 1 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 4675.18 4675.2018 PARKS CREDIT CARD AMAZON: BANKER BOXES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: PAPER 4.3.b Page: 4 m L 3 _ Amoun .y 0 a m 9.9� =a N 325.6E m t 38.5E m _ a� 273.0( M _ ra 272.9� — 0 L 55.11, sa a 55.1 . R U 0 13.4E 0 a 14.3< Q 75.9,r' ti r 1,699.9E " 1,895.0( 3 m E 49.6, u �a a Page: 4 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: CEMETERY SUPPLIES: C 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 AERIAL FABRIC: GYMNASTICS SUF 001.000.64.571.28.35.00 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE; 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 AMAZON: LAMINATING POUCHES, 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 POETS & WRITERS: WOTS MAGAZ 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES: CUPS 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES: STEP 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE; 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES: FILE F 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 AMAZON: CASH REGISTER ROLLS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON:CLOCK 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 4675.19 4675 PARKS CR CARD 2019 4.3.b Page: 5 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 17.5E 104.8E =a 448.8 - ui Y m 161.7E 223.5E m c a� 28.7E c �a 28.8E o 284.4' a 63.1 •� U 45.8' o R 1,645.0( o L a 71.6z Q rn 38.5� ti 742.5( 0 m 373.3E 3 57.0< E 18.2E �a Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE SUBSCRIP- 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 AMAZON: WALL CALENDAR 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 HARRIS SEEDS: PM SUPPLIES: PL) 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: 1 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 PARKSEED: PM SUPPLIES: PLANTI 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 4787.18 INV#4787.18 1/07/2019 - DAWSON - FRED MEYER - FLEX FUNDS - HYG 001.000.39.565.40.41.00 AT&T - ADDED MINUTES TO A CELL 001.000.39.565.40.41.00 8296.18 WSCPA TRAINING FOR S JAMES WSCPA Training for S James 12/20/1 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 8305.19 APL*ITUNES - PW- PHIL'S CITY CEl APL*ITUNES - PW- Phil's City Cell CI 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 8349.18 INV#8349.18 01/07/2019 - ANDERS( ICAP - INTERNAT'LASSOC. POLICE 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES - THE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 9573.18 CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING & E Capital Projects Planning & Evaluatio 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9821.18 INV#9821.18 01/07/2019 - GREENMI BATTERY MART OF W INCHESTER 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 9821.19 INV#9821.19 01/07/2019 - GREENMI SAFARILAND - MODEL 6360 (1 EA) 4.3.b Page: 6 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 38.9� m L 26.1 < `a N Y 99.4E t 11.7; •� w m c 258.4( c �a 164.6E o 39.5E a E 239.0( U 0 �a 0.9� o L a a Q rn 149.0( 0 m 74.4( •3 c 647.8z E t a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 01 /17/2019 10:10:16AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1172019 1/17/2019 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 TRANSUNION - BILLING STATEMEN 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 SEATTLE COFFEE GEAR - BUNN A, 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 GALLS - 3 STREETPRO GEAR BAG 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 GALLS - 3 ASP 26" EXPANDABLE B, 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 AMAZON - 1 PELICAN 1150 YELLOV 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 AKERLEATHER - 3 EA EXPANDABLI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 BATTERYMART - 3 EA ENDURA DU) 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 AKERLEATHER - 3 EA DOUBLE HAP 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 BID-1687/0907.18 BID/ED! HOLIDAY ADVERTISING, Cj BID/Ed! supplies - candy canes for 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 BID/Ed! holiday advertising 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total Bank total Total vouchers 4.3.b Page: 7 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 893.4< 38.1 E =a 653.4E ui Y m 726.0" 435.4E m c a� 44.0E c �a 119.9� o 282.61 a 452.0( •� U 0 50.7E 0 2,291.7- 37,913.9i Q 37,913.91, cn ti 37, 913.9 j 0 m L 3 c E a Page: 7 Packet Pg. 68 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project vi Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE E STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC Q. STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB c tv SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA r U) STIR2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB m STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA = WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CClid ui STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA U STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA t r SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC m c SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB tv — O WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB tv STIR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC Q- STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC p L WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB Q Q WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STIR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA a� ti STIR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB r STIR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA r c to SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA L SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC E STIR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA Z O WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB L IL WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB y STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA >+ STIR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA r y STIR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB m L SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE u_ SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC CD STIR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA E v WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD coo r Q WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 69 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project vi Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC E WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB 3 WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD r STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB m WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DDlid ui STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC v STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA r m c STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA c STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA O STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC tv STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD Q- STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA C STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB O L STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB Q- STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB Q STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA ti r SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB r c N SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC E STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB Z O WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB a STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM d rn PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA >, STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC r y STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE L FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB u_ STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC CD General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB E FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB U PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB r r Q WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STIR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive iol l E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STIR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 71 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements �11 STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR J&h Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program ' STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project AM SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 72 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle blic Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR 2015 Traffic Calming ■ STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR Bikelink Proje General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects sol 1 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Va WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outlall Pipe Modifications c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers solo Standard Details Updates low I I STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program i009 2016 Waterline Overlays - SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repair SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phas SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project s013 WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 73 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) 4.3.c Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle E6JC 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza E6MB FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STIR 2017 Traffic Calming STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIRlow- i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STIR i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement c276 Dayton Street Plaza PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration 2018 Traffic Calming STIR E8AB i028 STIR E8CB i030 E8CC i031 WTR E8CD i034 _ E8CE i035 STIR E8DA i032 STIR E8DB i033 STIR E8DC i037 STM E8FA s018 STM E8FB c521 STM E8FC c525 220th Adaptive 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements 2018 Overlay Program 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th 2018 Waterline Overlays 2018 Sewerline Overlays 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project ADA Curb Ramps 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps 2018 Lorian Woods Study 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program I Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 74 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement 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 SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project 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 STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 75 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 76 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STIR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STIR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STIR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STIR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STIR E8DC i037 238th St.lsland & Misc. Ramps STM E71FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES E8J13 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 77 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers i FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab rw ESCO III Projec FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis PM Dayton Street Plaza PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PRK City Spray Park FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK Veteran's Plaza Waterfront Restoration PRK Yost Park Spa WTM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements WTM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs STM 2014 Drainage Improvements �2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study V ST 2019 Storm Maintenance Project STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c443 E4MB c444 E4LA c276 E7MA c417 E4MA c480 E6MA m10 c494 E6MC c484 c521 E8FB c491 c433 E4FA c466 s018 c525 c486 i012 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin 34 STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive 011 STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 STM NPDES m013 E8FA E8FC E6FB E6FC E1FM E5FC E4FE E2FC E4FD E4FB E2FA E6FA E3FE E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Fact c479 STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB Iff STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 78 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.c Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM low Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoratiolhoon c435 E4FC STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC 2014 Chip Seal c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA. STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC' STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA. STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB �2017 Overlay Program i018 STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA , STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 lL8AAn STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 - STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 STR 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Avel& c423 STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements 02Cn STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 ADA Curb Ramps STR ADA Transition Plan s016 Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 STR Bikelink Project c474 STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancemen i026 STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study J& c427 STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 Revised 1/17/2019 E3DE E6DB E5DA E6AB MFWM E2AD E6AA E z t� E6DD t�0 E3AB Q E4DB E1 DA Packet Pg. 79 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR Train T=h - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Oth Adap i028 EBAB SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA ENJ SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Projec c441 SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA SWRX 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC. SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 EBCE 2018 Replacement SWR Sewerline Project c492�HGCIN SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update E8J6 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlay = ESCB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4,113 2016 Water Comp Plan Update 60 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 ESJA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6,113 WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 EBCD 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA 2019 Waterline Replaceme c498 WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3,113 WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5,113 WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA LWWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 80 4.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 911 (01 /01 /2019 to 01 /15/2019) c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -156.28 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 81.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 794.50 29,285.80 122 VACATION VACATION 802.50 35,335.20 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 177.50 6,355.43 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 24.00 787.93 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 90.75 3,153.92 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 48.00 2,118.00 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 48.00 1,846.38 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 58.50 2,506.82 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Dav Used 120.00 5,015.82 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 2.69 115.94 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 98.89 4,395.57 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 365.61 15,757.35 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 267.34 11,522.03 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 37.00 2,399.53 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,906.80 619,703.31 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 128.00 5,315.10 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 112.50 5,253.48 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 60.00 3,436.72 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,482.88 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 252.75 17,287.86 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 4.50 371.14 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 137.33 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,272.94 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 701.62 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 54.50 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holidav Comp 1.0 18.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 146.25 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME DOUBLI 3.00 0.00 902 MISCELLANEOUS BOOT ALLOWANCE 0.00 11,810.39 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 87.79 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 130.96 01 /17/2019 Packet Pg. 81 4.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 911 (01 /01 /2019 to 01 /15/2019) c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 91.74 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 117.51 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 160.86 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 588.02 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 111.20 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 1,075.64 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 723.91 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 829.56 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,140.74 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,252.60 48,197.81 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 212.12 Ig1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 712.27 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 148.17 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 1,046.71 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 5,734.58 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,733.25 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,322.33 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 381.68 Igo LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 375.31 Ig5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 444.80 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 270.62 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 533.19 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 104.93 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 48.00 1,853.25 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 222.40 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,209.57 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ; 0.00 173.48 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 287.66 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 173.48 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 203.23 0.00 sro MISCELLANEOUS School Resource Officer 0.00 111.20 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 462.88 01 /17/2019 Packet Pg. 82 4.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 911 (01 /01 /2019 to 01 /15/2019) c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount r o a a� traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 352.51 vab VACATION VACATION ADD BACK 237.00 0.00 L 21,458.41 $863,436.12 Y Total Net Pay: $581,777.02 a� a� c a� c 0 a E O 0 O L Q Q a T ui r O f4 E E 3 N O L Q I_ U fC a 01 /17/2019 Packet Pg. 83 4.3.e Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 911 - 01 /01 /2019 to 01 /15/2019 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 63652 01/18/2019 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,750.50 0.00 63653 01/18/2019 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 290.95 0.00 63654 01/18/2019 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,424.57 0.00 63655 01/18/2019 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL763 4,205.00 0.00 63656 01/18/2019 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,578.56 0.00 17,249.58 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2824 01/18/2019 awc AW C 330,497.63 0.00 2826 01/18/2019 edm CITY OF EDMONDS 50.00 0.00 2828 01/18/2019 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 106,594.75 0.00 2830 01/18/2019 us US BANK 110,056.81 0.00 2831 01/18/2019 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 27,796.27 0.00 2833 01/18/2019 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,877.32 0.00 2834 01/18/2019 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 628.50 0.00 0.00 582,501.28 Grand Totals: 599,750.86 0.00 1 /17/2019 Packet Pg. 84 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for an undetermined amount. Staff Lead: WCIA Claim Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Nick Stojkovic submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount. Attachments: Stojkovic, Nick CFD Packet Pg. 85 QED CITY OF EI)MONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM "`5 ,i ')f;n :'R f Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note thaVK-' / C Ic- / 0�7 0 L/1 who currently resides at ,Z 2-O -7-hi el tar /✓ v 1 mailing address _ 2-'Z *3 -n � k�zV e e hom phone # 17-3 " a SO 9 , work phone # and who resided at � ^ _ at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is i//'2OS3 , is claiming damages against C1 ' "1 ci r Fd'f"4 06t in the sum of $ / G K 1arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: U ZU / � — ? TIME: LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: -7�l a C-f k-, I:= c�a tit G .s r`. j S f- uJ m DESCRIPTION: � E 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance umstance that bro ht about the injury or d age. Also describe the injury or dama e. M fly e4 v C '.'vv 3 ,r" 'ram[: o G- 4 if <LJ±3q U (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) u- U 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. U Z 6 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4, Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: Yes L' No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) DRIVER: (model) OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#; Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Fomn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 86 4.4.a " * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * L being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be s 'ect to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56- x Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that /ia'ILyL-,� � ._ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (helshe) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: -/— // .;? O u � Title q My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. m a� E 0 U Fo m Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 87 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Reappointment of two Cemetery Board Members Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The attached list of Cemetery Board members have requested reappointment. Both members and positions have been vetted for reappointment eligibility. Staff Recommendation The Mayor and staff recommend reappointment of the two Cemetery Board members. Narrative Community volunteers are essential to the operation of the City's various boards and commissions. They provide knowledge and experience to the Mayor, City Council, and staff on a variety of issues. They also organize community events and help influence and shape our community. Edmonds is fortunate to have such a dedicated and hard working group of volunteers and we thank them for their willingness to serve the Edmonds community. Attachments: Boa rd_Commission_Reappointments_for_2019_additions Packet Pg. 88 4.5.a Board & Commission Reappointments for 2019 ➢ Cemetery Board - term limits: none o Melissa Johnson, Position #1, 2004 - 2018. New term will expire 12/31/2022 o Joan Longstaff, Position #3, 2015 - 2018. New term will expire 12/31/2022 1/16/2019 10:50 AM Packet Pg. 89 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Edmonds Willow Creek Daylighting Update Staff Lead: Carrie Hite and Phil Williams Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The Daylighting of Willow Creek is on the City's Capital Facilities Program, in the PROS plan, and City's comprehensive plan. Staff Recommendation Listen to presentation and be briefed on the progress of the Daylighting. Narrative The City of Edmonds is dedicated to a restoration project to significantly improve the tidal connection between the 28-acre Edmonds Marsh and Puget Sound. This will be accomplished by replacing the existing 1,600 ft long pipe, vault and tide gate system currently in place (which is a fish passage barrier) with an open, meandering tidal channel from the marsh to Puget Sound via Marina Beach Park. This action is known as'daylighting' and the project is referred to as Willow Creek daylighting project. This project provides multiple benefits to our community and region, including: regional salmon recovery, immediate improvements to SR104/Dayton St and Harbor Square flooding, virtual elimination of flooding in WSDOT Ferries holding lanes, long term and proactive response to future climate change impacts of sea -level rise and increased storm surge predicted for our region, invasive species control, buffer enhancements, recreational opportunities and community environmental education opportunities. This project is recognized through the regional salmon recovery planning effort overseen by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and managed through our local Watershed Resources Inventory Area called WRIA 8 (serving the Cedar, Sammamish, Lake Washington watershed and Puget Sound shoreline from the Chittenden Locks up to Mukilteo). This project is a Tier 1 priority project through WRIA 8 because of the unique opportunity to restore access for juvenile salmon -rearing to an intact marsh along one of the most degraded stretches of shoreline in Puget Sound. To date, we have completed the WRIA 8 required project phases of initial feasibility, final feasibility, an alternative channel alignment study, water quality assessment, sediment quality assessment, benthic invertebrate assessment, hydrologic analysis and modeling, and a localized sea -level rise assessment. Packet Pg. 90 5.1 Next steps for the project before we can go to construction of this project are initial design phase, permitting, final design phase, coordination with Marina Beach Park redevelopment, stakeholder engagement and land owner/ land control and tenure negotiations. We anticipate construction of this project starting in 2022. The City has engaged Keeley O'Connell from Nature Insights to pursue grants, report on grants, and provide project management services. In addition, the City has engaged Shannon and Wilson to complete the feasibility study and begin to work on design for the project. The lead from Shannon and Wilson is Dave Cline. Both Keeley and Dave will be participating in the update of this project to Council. To review completed reports on the Marsh, please follow this link and scroll down through parks projects: http://www.edmondswa.gov/parks-recreation-departments/park-planning-proiects.html Attachments: Presentation for Council Edmonds Marsh Packet Pg. 91 DAYLIGHTING OF WILLOW CREEI{ UPDATE JANUARY 22,2019 PROJECT LOCATION I I • • • • •I M• WfOrl �• en l $f a ne Playflold a RIge 1 G4 Park In Creek Basra 21 b1h St Sri S I � � LAlihn i{ ree n Packet Pg. 93 De4w Perk Res wvff BENEFITS OF DAYLIGHTING Regional salmon recovery Improvements and elimination of flooding Invasive species control Buffer enhancements Recreational opportunities Environmental education opportunities Response to future climate change 5.1.a 70711POIPMVITA M Willow Creek Daylight Update Edmonds City Council Meeting Jan. 22, 2018 David Cline, PE, CFM Shannon & Wilson Inc. Packet Pg. 95 5.1.a Daylight Upt 2017 Tasks Daylight Alignments Alternatives Additional Modeling Alternatives Water & Sediment Quality Sampling Packet Pg. 96 5.1.a _ a a` P RDJL CT _•N VVPIIDW Creek's Outlall VVSDOT Edmonds Way Outfall Macroalgr Beds i of Edm Marina Port of Edmanrls Owns 6t70' Long Pipe _ I oa t i.Existing . Daylight channel (Appr ox. 0.55 Acres) Existing chevronlLlnocal outfall Stern-rwater Pond Inlet WSDOTT Edrnond�s Way Storrrwater System i �Edm on ds Point 1 L Storrrewater Pon dJ r - — -_ Cary of Edmonds Sturm Vault and _ Tidagatc -• - l���I��'��--++������+ " �[ BNSF BridgesINFin C:-1-1 m to L (U O N G 'Legend 'D LU •'�"ti r Existing Channel i Existing Stormline L R Zr� Macroalgae Bed N ~z Sediment Drill Zone Q i EExislina - and ll eland CFtannel. Ntarst�. Areas � IJ.I r'•�Eb• _ _ Existing Daylight _ Channel tj Mudflat and Salt 3 Marsh 0 (�`� Freshwat er t V Emergent L [y�.�3 t�J Forested Wetland Forested Upland r+ y � Tidal I �+ ®Existing Inundation d N x i C D so 300 C E 1 - fC WL11ox C:-ok mrivwjiu F•rni—i Q Ex pandyd Marslr Concupl Dasigrr and Hydraullu Modeli, Fdrnnn dti, Wa slrir JInrl EXISTING CONDITIONS raoto- Marsh a.e as calculated From [Mudfl at and Salt November 2017 Packet P 97 Marsh] • [FreshwaterSmergentl • tFDrosted wouandl. �.. S—ON 4,W]LSON - 5.1.a T NOTE Figure adapted from electronic files, 2004 WVlow Cr Suivey.dwg, 2008 Marsh Survey.dwq, 2p120049 TOPO.dwg and 9asernap.dwy received 08-04-2014. Also aerial.jpg received 08-11_2014. wSUDT Ferry prererred alternative location s is approXimate. JaVi-IgHt Alignment — P r r a NORTH BUFFER. tie• / AREA 0 ACRES r / � r r r r 10 Fr v� / C %r r 'r r SOUTH BUFFER AVG. 97 F AREA = 2A5 ACRES � r � 0 200 400 it Scale in Feet Contour Interval = 1 Foot AREA: 0.59 ACRES LEGEND PROPOSCD DAYLIGI•IT CONTOUR WETLAND RESTORATION RIPARIAN BUFFER — SNOHOM ISH COUNTY GIS PARCELS WILLOW CHtztK DAY LIGHI 'i T EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN AND HYDRAUL-10 MODELING EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ALTERNATIVE 1 ALIGNMENT AND BUFFERS November 2017 Packet Pg. 98 S'I' zzzzzzzzr— daylight Alig _ r ,WV me r / J r l NORTH BUFFER AVG. 89' AREA = 2.70 ACRES ee � w 1 ` '1v rr J 3 g; NOTE Fours adapted fmm electronic files, $ 2004 Willow Cr Sc"ey cfwg, n N 20Lll3 Marsh S—e d 20720049 pC_ — Y Wr_1.dwg nd aLuse map.dwg re ved (Xi-E14-7014 Alsn aenaI jpg re —Ned 08-ii-2nia WSCX-7T Ferry pmfermd alternstivP. IopatiOn ro is app--.te 0 200 400 Scale in Feat Contour Interval = t Foot �.. —------------- DAYLIGHT STREAM I ENGTH: 2,138 FT AREA: 2.37 ACRES Y d L U O ❑T WETLAND SHELF to C O W LEGEND '\ L N \ PROPOSED DAYLIGHT L CONTOUR WETLAND RESTORATION (j) RIPARIAN 6UFFER O — - • — • • — SNOHOMISH COUNTY GIS fix. ti. PARCELS E ■ r R C d N d '~ C V VNII I CNN CRFFK DAYI ICHT PRC),JFCT EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN Q AND HYDRAULIC MOr]FI INC; t=M ON DS, WASHING I ON ALTERNATIVE 2 ALIGNMENT AND BUFFERS November 2017 Packet Pg. 99 Mill SHANNON awILSOn41••.., 5.1.a NOTE Figure adapted from electronic files, 2004 Wi17ow Ci_Survey.dwg, 2008 Marsh Survey.dwq, 2W14 49 TOPO.dwg and Basemap.dwy received 08-04.2014. Also aerial.jpg received 08-1 1 _20, 4. WSUUi Ferry preterred alternative IoCation is approXimate. javnp ame r � r r r r r r � r � r N()RTH BUFFER AVG. 75' r AREA = 2.33 ACRES r ' r 0 200 400 it Scale in Feet Contour Interval = 1 Foot DAYLIGHT STREAM LENGTH. 2170 FT 4 AREA-2.3;ACRES LEGEND PROPOSCD DAYLIGI•IT CONTOUR WETLAND RESTORATION RIPARIAN BUFFER — — — SNOHOM ISH COUNTY GIS PARCELS WI LLUW C;RI=tK DAY LIGH I PRQJ fir. T' ] EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN AND I IYDRAULIG MOC]ELING EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ALTERNATIVE 3 ALIGNMENT AND BUFFERS November 2017 Packet Pg. 100 11' �iANNON 51ML�901� 1, ._ 5.1.a A FJJ NOTE F0ure adapted from electronic files, 2004 Willow Cr Sc"ey cfwg, 20L)B Marsh S—ey.dw9, 20720049 TC1YC).dwg and Liasemap.dwg re ved Q(i-E14-]014 Al n aPnal jpg rent Ned 08-1i -2m 4 WSCX-7T Ferry pmfened alfPYnafivP. I008tiGn is appmx�n,atP JaVI-1911t Alignment — Alt. 4 (PreterreC / / f / / r f -- NORTH BUFFER AVC 15 FT' AREA = 0.79 ACRE \ r / A `-L)Ul" BUFFLR AVG 135 F 1 AREA - 3 51 ACRES DAYLIGHT STREAM L[NCaTi i; 1,995 FT- / AREA: 0.69 ACRES 0 200 400 Scale in Feat Contour Interval = t Foot LEGEND PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CONTOUR WETLAND RESTORATION RIPARIAN BUFFER — - • — • • — SNCHOMISH COUNTY GIS PARCELS VNII I CNN (:RFFK DAYI ICHT PRC).1FCT EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MOr]FI INC; tDM ON DS, WASHING I ON ALTERNATIVE 4 ALIGNMENT AND BUFFERS November 2017 packet Pg.�101 �"' 4FIIWNOIY3Wk.S01�1•.... 5.1.a 0[0111to 2018 Tasks Additional Modeling Alternatives Ddeling A Modified Channel Cross Section Habitat Features, Large Woody Debris, Riparian Vegetation Tidegates, Berms & Floodwalls Extreme Tide & Sea Level Rise Analysis Packet Pg. 102 5.1.a 30 Lj- LLu 20 Z Z 0 10 Q } Lu I Lu o 0+oo Ole III[:i•Rw a[01@K%;mIIaIIII relyLair.1• RIPARIAN VEGETATION BN SF R.O.W. 30 Lu 20 LL- EXISTING GROUND EXISTING TRACK t T_ — -- — — — — — — _ --V 1 O 2 J Nu:t r 9 - PROPOSED DAYLIGHT -�, Q TOPSOIL DRESSING FILL EXISTING DITCH EL HDPE LINER CLEAN BACKFILL GRADE TO DRAIN LuCHANN J TOWARD DAYLIGHT. L.L. 0 0+50 1+00 1+26 TYPIC AYLIGHT CHANNEL SECTION - WITHOUT HABITAT BENCHES 30 RIPARIAN VEGETATION Lu Lu 20 10 PROPOSED DAYLIGHT L.L. TOPSOIL DRESSING I CHANNELHDPE LINER Lu 0 3 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS BNSF R.O.W. 30 Lu Lu EXISTING GROUND 20 L.L �. EXISTIN G TRACK 10 0 FILL EXISTING DITCH Lu BACKFILL GRADE TO DRAIN J TOWARD DAYLIGHT.,HANN LuO 0+00 CLEAN STREAM BED MATERIAL 0+50 1 +00 1 +26 T ICAL DAYLIGHT CHANNEL SECTION - WITH HABITAT BENCHES AND LARGE WOODY DERIS Packet Pg. 103 5.1.a R w LL- Z Z Q Q LU J LU Selt Regulating Tidegate,, El INR.O W. 30 FILL TO ELEVATION 15.0' SHEETPI LE HEADWALL 20 ONCRETE TIDFGATE HEADWALL AND WALKWAY XISTING GROUND 2' 10 71 2, 2,� PROPOSED QAYLIGHT 2-1 E. 4.75' 0+00 0+50 1+00 TIDEGATE SECTION - (2) 8 'X 8' TIDEGATES Self Regulating Tidegate - Designed to close near MHHW (9ft) and protect Tides or Storm Surges Normal Tidegates - Designed to close on incoming tide A Li w 20 LL Z Z O 10 Q LU J LU 0 1+43 from King Packet Pg. 104 pring Tides, Extreme Tides & Sea Level Rise � Tidal Conditions Late spring /early summer fish habitat tidal cycle King Tide - 10.5ft (NAVD88) Storm Surge -Dec. 17, 2012 - 12.25ft (NAVD88) Sea Level Rise Year 2100 - 1.8ft Stream / Stormwater Flow Conditions Spring base flows - 1 cfs 1 % AEP Flood (SAIC) December 2007 Flood - Longer duration Packet Pg. 105 1 5.1.a SPRING TIDE NEAP TIDE lunar tide new moon lunar tide 0 ------------- solar tide © bayoffundy.com King Tides o --- .W L full moon third quarter moon first quarter moon Astronomical / Yearly / Stillwater Packet Pg. 106 Willow Creek Daylight Update Winter King Tides + Storm Surge + Wind Waves - - jamr-M,� f F %I k _ a � W F- Aster EFw..rr !IOwr .. Wind and Prey a u re Corn pon a nts of H urOca ne Storm Sur-9 e !Stcirm rnot.*6 WaleE on ocean -!side flaws away without r4tlslrig sea 1"el muerr Pressure-dri•serti Srmaug 5 �oF to - As water a pproa-ches I aa7-1 it "piles up" oreal.Ing storm su r -e fir& oOPAET 5.1.a 0[0111to Ddeling A Alternative 5 — Daylight Channel Only Alternative 6 — Daylight with Flood Berms Harbor Square / SR-104 / Shellabarger Alternative 7 —Self-Regulating Tidegate (Close @ Elev. 9ft) w/ Shellabarger Flood Berm Y d L U 0 0 BNSF/ W Packet Pg. 108 EXISTING CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 5 MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL Inundation Depths -�, eu_� N o Fa I Island M6Knt�o WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT _ 0-0.5FT 3.5-4FT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 5 Y EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT _ 1 - 1 1 FT 45- 5 FT �`� u creek KING TIDE WITH W _ r'- DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 9 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT Kit ,IMF I ,s LATE SPRING FISH EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 9..5 - 2 FT 5 - 5.5 FT 'ond' . S HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS 02-2.5FT �s.5-6FT "na `®sne`. MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT 0 45❑ sop 2.5 - 3 FT _ s - 6.5 FT snH �� e-cstl?ark , ] December 2018 wpacket Pg. 109 -- 3 - 3.5 FT _ 6.5+ FT K1 Feet SFIANNON &wLsoK v4 0<...4....+..� c.-�Hv....i�A.a ...�..� ... .....e.................... Alt. Daylight 5.1.a King Tides,, - U • Fl o.atn[l S.a " ed to Isvl a t81"tenol' r��:di Ilnn[fin ] 20 Lu ,y''�� • R � f.-w to U sherrat.er�` —r sl,e•Il.it�nl°�'' � ���� • a � � O ALTERNATIVE 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL W11 H F15H HABI I A I CHANNEL E t Inundation Depths i N o FL) �, Island 1MIIk11U�n WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT _ o O-5 FT 3-5 4 FT ; EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 5 Y EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT Q _ 0.5 - 1 FT 4-4.5 FT �'•� ` d 4iO°k KING TIDE WITH SLR 2100 W r' DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 —5 FT `.I�' _ Sno. Is �EDMONDS, WASHING I ON 1-5-2FT 5-5-5FT Kitsap '� AND LATE SPRING FISH n, °"° HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS IK• 02-2.5FT _5.5-6FT tiu,tle, Cesne MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT o 15o goo 2-5 - 3 F I e- 6-5 FT o'o a siTa7,gat i December 2018 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5, FT Shor II nK� $ eel SFI►I NoN.&WILsm Packet Pg. 110 13ainbnd r Islr I Sr- tt " KirklT rl " 5.1.a N a 3 w i 4: JiIl ALTERNATIVE 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WI l H FISH HABI IAl CHANNEL Inundation Depths ''� j F•N o _ 0 O-5 FT 3-5 4 FT , Island (M�AdtGo v M WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 5 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT .I "oax W - T DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING STORM SURGE TIDE 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT �� Snon Is o EDMONDS, WASHING ION Kiteap ! I„„„Y, AND 1 to (100-YR) AEP 7-5 - 2 FT 5 - 5-5 FT _ t.-s. �iycx� INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS S 2 - 2.5 FT 5.5 - 6 FT I WLIFAI ,ke I.....c.B'w �. �2-5-31-1 6-6-5 FT "�`;"``"'�'� nke Fnres[Tnrkl,,,,;k;,, MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT o 150 goo Snnrnl�ne } December 201 s Packet Pg. 111 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5, FT i KingK--ry eet SFIANHdN&WILSOKI 1milg-iti a 1tl=,irii —ttle K.W. rl " EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 ALTERNATIVE 5 MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WI I H FPSH HABI IAI CHANNEL m a� L U 3 0 c 0 E Lu Inundation Depths N o a _ 0 0.5 FT _ 3-5 a FT , island /0MUkilt— v WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 5 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT _ 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT '`� gr:romk W - T' DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING STORM SURGE TIDE WITH SLR-2"100 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT �� Snoh� is o EDMONDS, WASHING ION 1.5 - 2 FT 5-5.5 FT Kitsap I 1r+r+w.� r AND 1 to {� OO-YR] AEP c ass. ' "..... � INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS 2 - 2.5 FT 5.5 - 6 FT IfA6untlakn 10--Rri nr �2.5-31-1 6-&SFTnkn F W�—t-pi-,xf,,,,;k;,, MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT 0 450 900 Snnrnirnc December �01 s Packet Pg. 112 KingKenr»nrn 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5, FT Feet SHMNON &wL soK w4 iu�r,e,.;.rna ltis i senrue� Fr, r:xi., ri ��- ,EMIrJ■110 .MM U.V,2 7e,:F@5.1.a ALTERNATIVE 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEFSIBERMS Inundation Depths L N o FL a _ D 0-5 FT © 3-5 4 FT , Island )MLikillr•rr v M WILLQW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 6 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT _ 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT ''• hnirt:rgak W R DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT Snohomish KING TIDE WITH EDMONDS, WASHING ION Kit Sap !� l yr ,, ,, LATE SPRING FISH 0 7-5 - 2 FT 5 - 5-5 FT - .- tv S ;•-e. �ss`x 1 HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS 2 - 2.5 FT 5.5 - 6 FT Anaainue,ke lari:iculiiinr oc5 ➢I.,kcFni'ns[Pnrk=, MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS {FT) D 4sD soo December2018 PacketPg.113 2-5 - 3 h l 6- fi-S FT t I<,;,c7 St,nrram�• K„ 3-3.5FT 6.5,FT King',-- Feet SHANNONBWILSON,1 1mir-liriri r- PJ -lltic K44kl.i 'dl S 1 �.01IN101: EXISTING CONDITIONS Inundation Depths _ 0 0-5 FT 3.5 - 4 FT =, lslandnn�k l -� 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT d oax 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT Sno . Is 1-5 - 2 FT 5 - 5-5 FT Kitsap %Y 2 - 2.5 FT 5.5 - 6 FT IYfa ca6nv: 2-5 - 3 1-1 6- 6-5 FT La a siTnF bar I Stror I� c� 9 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5+ FT iMinbriri r Isls Sea - I(irklT rl ' r fl ' r/Flood Berms � Ri SLR 2100 EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 6 KING TIDE WITH SLR-2100 AND LATE SPRING FISH HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS (FT) � U Flo�arn[l Snawall used ro Z. in[error marsh Ilnnrfinq 0 w f E W ., J Praposod Lo.�ao � _ • N �r c 0 % • - — — r o • 1 � -' ' � � raw C 4- - � C ALTERNATIVE 6 ++ MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL a WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL N AND FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEESIBERMS E N o F. t) 0 �a WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT 4 u EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT Q W - F DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING EDMONDS, WASHING ION S 0 150 900 December 2018 Feet SHMNON&WLsaK1 Packet Pg. 114 IJ 5.1.a EXISTING CONDITIONS Inundation Depths -� _ 0 0-5 FT 3.5 - 4 FT =, Island 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT i 7-5 - 2 FT 5 - 5-5 FT Kitsap } EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 5 STORM SURGE TIDE I AND "I% (100-YR) AEP k.... INFLOW HYDRDGRAPHS MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS (ET) m L U 3 0 c 0 E w ALTERNATIVE 6 MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CH/1NNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEESIBERMS N o FL) WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT W DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING LUMC]NUS, WASHING; f ON O 450 900 December 2018 21 - - R-050 SFuwHaroaWIVSOI�LI Packet Pg. 115 5.1.a S 0 0 ALTERNATIVE 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEESIBERMS Inundation Depths �, F•N o FL) -� WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT a o o Island mkiu -s FT 3.5 - 4 FT , EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 6 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT d G..pk W - r DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 -5 FT .jno. Is: STORM SURGE TIDE WITH SLR-2100 - LUMC]Nus, wASFiI 7-5 - 2 FT 5 - 5-5 FT Nc�raN FSitsap : AND 1 Flo (1 00-YR)AEP ' -.. •.r. I�•" INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS S �25-31-1 6-6-5FT "�� Cep"°` MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT o .150 goo 2-5 - 3 h I 6 - fi-S FT La a � siTnF�pai j � � December 2018 - -8-050 S:or 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5, FT 9 eet SHMNdHaWIL.SdALN Packet Pg. 116 Iminbririne Isl I Sea KAI. e 5.1.a ■ ■ ALTERNATIVE 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION BERMS AND TIDEGATE Inundation Depths �, N o F� a Wand F�n kd -�F WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT 0 0-5 FT 3-5 4 FT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 7 v o EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT _ 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT '`� a raak W r DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING KING TIDE WITH 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT I ��� I Sno is LUMC]NUS, WASHING ION . Kitsap ! I,,,,,�,,, LATE SPRING FISH 1-5 - 2 FT 5- 5-5 FT j S 02-2.5FT 5.5-6FT kWLIFnlskn19TIa Finer HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS InknFW-etTn,%L,,,F ; MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS (FT) o �5o goo December20 8 2-5 - 3 h l 6- Fi-S FT 1 S4,n rni,nn- K nr., 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5+ FT „�••w_.._.....,..,.....I�.e.,.,6 ,Kid$ v...._ ., Feet SFIANNON&WIL.SOFL ,.., Packet Pg. 117 7)avlioht C_hannpl w/ Tidpoatp � M • .lMl1:&At•I• ' U tr �sed ro rsvlala rnr�n�r o marsh Ilnnrfinq Lu �. Jos : •, '. . � � � r : J � Cv Pmpncnrl SR•104 C % O j 4. Lu ■ c y - t Prnp-cl lideyale [Non -opera lional) - oar ek y N 17 �2 ALTERNATIVE 7 N r" MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION BERMS AND TIDEGATE V Inundation Depths '� i N o 0 0.5 FT 3-5 a FT =, Wand I iuk t-. v WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT Q EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 7 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT d r cox W - 457 r DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING KING TIDE WITH SLR-210❑ 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 - 5 FT �I�� 5no Is EDMONDS, WASHING ION 1.5 - 2 FT 5-5.5 FT K1L58p r;gr;d ' AND LATE SPRING FISH S ��•x, HABITAT INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS w 2-2.5FT 5.5-6FT�P Magna: MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS (FT) o aso s00 2.5 - 3 1-1 6- 6.S FT 1 I oc;7TL k�cr� i r Decemk�er 2�'I S 5� Irnn K-.mn� Packet Pg. 118 o ,. King 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5+ FT i .-� Feet SFMN0N&WLS0KlNCI 13Riigirir. ri 1,P.Irfcl Srnl[I . KirklT rl "....... I. I 5.1.a 4: JeIl ALTERNATIVE 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL WITH FISH HABITAT CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION BERMS AND TIDEGATE Inundation Depths J _� N o a 0 0-5 FT 3-5 a FT ; fsla� kd b� v L WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 7 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT ra W - F DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 1 - 1.5 FT 4.5 -5 FT ��� Ino. i _ STORM SURGE TIDE - LUMC]Nus, wASHINc�ION Kit ! I ., AND 1 f0 (10❑-YR) AEP _ 7-5-2FT 5-5-5FT ; �„.... - �.M1 i INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS S 0 2-2.5 FT _ 5.5 -6 FT ^" kE' °ems^°�~ MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS FT nkn Fi'es[TnAL3,t� j { ) 0 ISO 900 December 2018 packet Pg. 119 6- 6-S FT i K�„r»or 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5+ FT King Feet sHmNr m&wLsoKiN LTirfin'rT Icls Seen l[]n K,. 1, d 5.1.a III EXISTING CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 7 MEANDERING DAYLIGHT CHANNEL Inundation Depths ' f N o a _ 0 0-5 FT 3-5 4 FT , Island Inn„k,u: r v WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 7 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT _ 0.5 - 1 FT 4 - 4.5 FT ''� ra W - T DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING 1 - 1.5 FT a.5 -5 FT \�/ Sno: i STORM SURGE TIDE WITH SLR-2"100 - LUMC]Nus, wASHIC MOD 0 ION 7 -5 - 2 FT 5 - s-s FT Kitsap ' � 1± ��������- AND 1 to (1 00-Y R) A E P � � x, """`s INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS 0 2 - 2.5 FT 5.5 - 6 FT RlWuntlake 1-1--Rnpe' � �aknr�PsTAka�u i MAXIMUM INUNDATION DEPTHS {FT) 0 4so soo z-5 - s r i _ 6 - 6-s FT December Snnrni nc ., Packet Pg. 120 3 - 3.5 FT 6.5, FT ^ rry King Feet SHMMON&WILBOK . �- -> a i�_. ❑...,i... Y d L U Habitat 2 0 Alternatives 5 and 6 provide similar, most marsh area connectivity, and best 0 W habitat _ Alternative 7 has increased velocities at tidegate Flooding Alternative 5 — Daylight Only increases tidal flooding Alternative 7 — Daylight w/ Tidegate increases flooding from stormwater Alternative 6 — Daylight w/ Flood Berms reduces flooding Recommendation —Alternative 6 - Daylight w/ Flood Berms Packet Pg. 121 Day it a PEN°uacra r-ocnTiary .°a�.d,.x. rn R. n 6o1e°nt may not reflect Port of Edmonds` National Ge ogra phic's�curren[ Marina �! 4 map poflG Sources[ surreal . Geographic, Esri, o'Lvrr," �• HERE, UNEP-WomG. uses. - -eain' searne NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN,'- ea � O Existing Chevron/Unocal = - , Willow Creek Oormwa utf.11 Stter Pond Dutfall WS DO T Inlet Edmonds Way -- ~/ WSDOT Edmonds Way r- Stormwater System Port at Edmonds Owns 600 Long Pipe , - Edmonds Point Stormwater Pond - WC-01 �' a ..City of Edmonds - r 3 Sto rrn Va ult and isat Tidegate e Macroalgae P BNSF Bridges i c I~ _ �! MP Source. Esn, Di ita k— Corn rnunity M Y d O 1 L '* Legend (� Existing Channel Existing Stormline SMacrealgae Bed N Sediment Drift C i Zone O C t Existiina Channel- Marsh. 'a t and Upland Areas LU r Existing Daylight i Channel fA Mand Salt L Marsh tQ r i Freshwater N t Emergent i i •� C73 Forested Wetland O E i t Forested Upland i t • W t ® Existing Tidal r Inundation V t i 1 Q — . Water Quality Q Sample Location (� ® • WC-07 L i _ C — d WC-05 �\ 0 t50 300 L ry= . w----- Feet �r f _ �J ; WC-OB yr i - Willow Creek Daylight Q i LNMFU Edmonds Marsh Edmonds, Washington EXISTING CONDITIONS AND _ SAMPLING LOCATIONS Note: Marsh areas calculated from IMudflat and Sall May 2017 Packet Pg. 122 Marsh] + [Fresh —ter Emergent] [Forested wetland]. SHANNON LSiI ALSO Y d L U Sediment Quality 0 WC-03 (Harbor Square Outfall) 0 0 E W Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) Exceedances (Significant) WC-04, WC-05, WC-06 Showed lesser (minor) exceedances of SVOCs Water Quality Fecal Coliform exceedances —all stations, periodically, except none at WC-01 (Marina Beach Park) Lead —One exceedance at WC-05 (Dec. 2016) D.O & pH —Minor, periodic exceedances at WC-03 Packet Pg. 123 1 5.1.a Station ID WC-01 WC-02 WC-03 WC-04 WC-05 Station Name Puget sound Lower Willow Creek Willow Creek Marsh Willow Creek Marsh Willow Creek Marsh ow Creek Ilebarger Creek B-IBI Score 18 14 12 16 18 18 14 B-IBI Rating Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Poor Very Poor 5.1.a Packet Pg. 125 5.1.a 2012 Willow Creek Daylighting Project Progress To Date 2013 Early Feasibility Study Marina Beach Master Planning Process Final Feasibilty Study Alternative Alignments Study Marsh site -specific study (est) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1W 7/1/2012 - 2/1/2014 8/1/2014 - 10/31/2015 i 1101 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2017 3 0 2019 201! 0 Today E �a w 9/1/2017 - 12/31/2018 11/1/2017 - 6/30/201 Packet Pg. 126 5.1.a 0 Today Willow Creek Daylighting Project Next Steps � 2020 3/15/2019 �.. Stakeholder meetings 12/31/2019 Initial Design Phase (30-60%) $ 7/31/2020 2021 1/1/2020 Marina Beach Park design 10/31/2020 9/1/2020 Permitting no 5/31/2021 12/1/2020 Final Design Phase 7/31/2021 3 0 2022 ; 202 0 Implementation- daylight channel elements 10/1/2021 ft 6/30/2022 Implementation- Marina Beach Park 2/1/2022 8/31/2022 c 0 E w Packet Pg. 127 Future Funding Scenario Multi -benefit project = Multiple Funding Sources Salmon recovery Stormwater Mgmt Flood protection Recreation enhancement Education opportunities E k QUESTIONS 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 City Sustainability Activities Update Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background The City of Edmonds has been active in promoting community livability, environmental protection, and economic health. These concepts, when integrated together over the long term, are at the heart of "sustainability." Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Sustainability activities have been performed by City staff, consistent with Mayor and Council direction, in broad and numerous ways over the last few years. To highlight some of these activities, a slide presentation (attached) has been prepared for the City Council's January 22 meeting. NOTE: An updated version of the slide presentation will be available next week. Attachments: Sustainability_Presentation_2019.01.22.RVSD Packet Pg. 130 Sust. 160bility City Council Meeting January 22, 2018 1� Presented by Shane Hope, Development Services Director Carrie Hite, Parks Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Packet Pg. 131 EIv-fDsfari meet he eds awf r �11Ni1�A�4 0IIift to uhl r rfMWO �IlitOulk %V ME- b 0 i 1 i 111 qf� the ompra�n icing generations *^ meet thei�nee�ls," J wx w U � A�rM �- i { 5.2.a Overview Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Development Services ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Public Works .................................................................................................................................................................................................. . Parks Et Recreation Conclusion V N N E a Packet Pg. 133 Development Services a Plans &t Codes Public Information Projects 5.2.a Cityof EdTnands C oxnp rehensl,e Plan Adapt July 28, 2015 - Ud*xd pWember 15. 2017 c.i Q Packet Pg. 135 �9 "� - "" � � � � �_! _: �r 5.2.a f_ N N r r t1 a ,+ •.v Ores a Aain Garden � C i. N 7 Co Packet Pg. 137 Example of hand-out showing standard detail for raingarden design. EXISTING GROUND Ilk INLET CONNECTION PER STD DETAIL SU --'603 EXCAVATION EXTENT 5.2.a W 2 r V Q fC C r•+ N 7 RAIN GARDEN VEGETATIOT PER STR DETAIL 50-641 0 B070M WIDTH > 1" (MIN) W N 4" (MIN) FREEBOARD 1' (MIN) N ,o 6" PONDING cnlY N 2.5 MIN •- ,t , 12" TO 24% 1' (MIN) ABOVE SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE OR HYDRAULICALLY RESTRICTIVE LAYER r ��� iY. ,� -Y .4 •e, F�, SECTION, NTS 1 �`+ • 2 RAISED BERM, y�l INHERE REQUIRED. SEE NOTE 1. a SCARIFY NATIVE SUBGRADE, SEE NOTE 2 cn MULCH, SEE STD DETAIL SD-64 a� — BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA OR COME E �T AMENDED NATIVE SOIL PER STI) DE _ SD-642 Q Packet Pg. 138 W-F - UCH p CA WOM i7 jllljljl,�� FfACdks it OFF 5.2.a N N r V Q R ST RN C N WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY cn Projects undertaken in2016-2017 academic year included: o 4t" Ave. Cultural Corridor o Edmonds Marsh Restoration o Zero Waste/Food Waste o Visitors' Mobile App o Playful City o Edmonds Cemetery Mappin o Sea Level Rise o Green Business Program o Wastewater Treatment Plant o Walkability Assessment Education o Stella's Landing opportunities Packet Pg. 140 « d- - - PION- ar '+ z� r- y #3C ! if � 1 t 4 Packet Pg. 141 + PhotAre2lii: CreativeC mmons4 rn -� lip 7 .. zk t ■ Sustainability I Development Services `h Point Edwards PI OF a: Ed ind-.. aP. +zinc, c3 4- Amtrak- Sounder �I l Edmond /� ?Edmonds k- Station �' ?) 0 s s' °i f a Ih Ir > +, � c r c� I W Dayton St --.... Dayton St a Q M C w c w, rn a 3 N � Alder St w Pine, at a a Iminds C dy Park 11 i -Pine �5 v Q ;r Packet Pg. 143 5.2.a i G 9 V W C N Packet Pg. 144 V) N N Q r Sustainability I Development Services Energy efficiency Reduction of flood impacts Fire safety � I G N CD CD _ I N C O S ' W al T 4 N v L Q Nil r a.,i A ,� ` _ y i44� "e. , 'vim - • 1. `TN f .. a Y .i. "�.. 'ypN1rA S..• �� � � �M w�J � �F f� � x i T.e { � 1ij' MMI S.R'1 tk10 lip LA 'J- V V �i - omi r4 a - d• r , .aia•_ a 'A F -•. �'.,, +y,� ,'i!.�sw+�.�,•q'i .�„�i� a ��`F.%�`'ai Wa`k _ aka-- s`'°�� � < �� � �, - W y � y'� _ S� ap Fsi z` � -•+�' by s r Y A•� � � t-T a� a^ #�Packet Pg. 147P. 5.2.a u Grab That Chain� wn Ire®S Before Yu a Alternatives to Cutting Here Are Soin r.�nye0wners may Consider adOWlng) aPoa'6 a tree ro n.: 1- aPPearsunhea11 rs Vag prd^ingfatWhooae re toYl^8 pranCRB6 entl rcflage to Perhaps the Vae remaut In p1aCe whpe re critting Obwn a tree s broken lobs. However'roygaview "IlRo vygws, or has tlangel o these dhatlenges. vista ProMni rl' olal trees there are mans' Consider other sbtutlons brriches Cp a tree or se'+ re et the, root- bt yowin8 shore ar k ide 9 .pend�ng on MlCh of WON a rp c" chat Ow 9 anstnau`" pfatllam. take a leer, to sae seine down tees, • , ' ' • Ir, Ol water, l}attC tree tree may tacking RVlhBMe. aloe 6Dil, fertPlNng. ^f 6 A dragtlCa#IY lmPrOve the neaan DI A tree. tare, g,W1 as mlrtCNn$, aMp,o wa[erin$C8n t1M eond111aa► it Cbnsde[ ImW'�r'Inf Leaves or 11"dies Of • Ind tree appear yelttiv+ , ' - • i br wFdN Of 8 tree F011age a spares Or +n Oln Pt seMCn dreAP 8 Tree grOWtn Is SlVnled • w> Ctpw^ IBddctfDn det/eaae5 bye he without mdPrng Consider areas "dlee'." if '�{�1 •'Tv Yr!! . The W!"or a free bibCirs l y a view L A troe 6 growing We • close to a buNdin$ .. • - - blokes tr di4r, A tree is growing too vovne m nwre ro a tRlihY Ilse wn 7ex al w Proper PNning can re move crowded, i'VONe the health eta rre ' clogs wvwn Vv yeer 08eas ed brantnes aM1d CCneldel diet"'" aleai IF', There 16 dame$ e to a tree after 8 Storm , � - litres 0! sl$ttl Ce bE blaCKln$ Mower branC^e6 mW fe yes Ioi branches Therearedaed or dYlrt$ bYBnCneS raga they A [rae'S hindering trilift Crown resin$ and ae5lhEtICS. can iinp rove SafEtY Brenthes ore growingme close s tree center$PPoare unheannY hem bees. Tnls aeaaa yam d. Cons! vehicle Vai Folfa$e the Tne plant Pas dtgeased reeves or Un+nchas M� destdan ail A (reels imp S Pe A a1faClktga view T^e tea yybs Iwo le8ders L,,r brancrnts are ' [Ylo uMlero ae►3ll�e Retein &anon µmb• a7M ovrrn s � a ' ' torte Prwa one hero �O ea Itae planning for the Future --- To Ptevem tree nrpblems do"!'" vtey Ai alwaya choose Me irght vere tar the hght Pleoe. When Pwn%%� think longterm. Cenadar atree s height and wytltt, at maturity. how ,.or room the roofs rjo need. antl what the vas rn�Rht lmoede as It grvyr. Keep In rii the benetiLB of trees, arW how to 'lam tracts to enhance' rather than detract }torn. the exlsun,e"yhdnmenl.The ehainiew wiN never be called an whea the ngntvee le Planted in the right Playa to the Bret Plata. IT 1 rferore you ondeReke a rar¢pxale orlsnlnd Pm1iec4 Please corn t V,, Cyr), Ot Edmonds pevelopmen Services eePanment Find en arborist hoei bytiwlture Inrarylauonai Society of Arlo tot protessianai pruning or It you are d 100 rn of a tree. conceme SPK t 1 e ar. An acre of dC mb�r s surne=--'Uooted dill"frig a car 2b, p single large tree can enough COS over 1 year to eq • hnprtwe air duality ,,Cm, crime rates In • Urbanerj0VC menaa • iieg'IWte temperatdree • Provide oKYgen • Increase Property valaee • Prdvtde wytidute nalMat Finer atormw•tsr and dec*ease storm runoff and floods provide windbreaks • ,ce lli end ,an aesthetics Prdvi pllvaoy • Ifnproi mental health 54,40"ter carbon 91dek r10168 PPilutlon • irenc'ro'eee �yMi -rce a�•'" ' .a'y�•.•M A- rt rtW rv.�1..ri �n0�1'.o1ei'�id NM k�� �cnv,unronL tin. �nJ Mtn.LLr•rs -me and Clb d ecmear Packet Pg. 149 Solar radiation powers the climate system. Some solar radiation is reflected by the Earth and the atmosphere. The Greenhouse Effect 1�pTMOSPHE �I� R About half the solar rad is absorbed by the Earth's surface and warms it. Some of the infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere but most Is absorbed and re- emitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds. The effect of this is to warm the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere. Infrared radiation is emitted from the Earth's surface. Puhlm,p.*. Works Alternative Fuel Fleet Facilities Energy Reductions Sustainability I Public Works 17 AL tL l to - O O OFFICIX y FORdl a 0 5.2.a 5,000,000 4,500,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 0 Q D 2,500,000 0 U U 2,000,000 W 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 A WWTP Electrical Consumption 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 � Electric Consumption (kWh) a ■ Trend ■ a a a ■ ■ 2017 N N r V Q ■ 1 U Packet Pg. 153 5.2.a Facilities Electrical 2012 - 2017 ESCO Project Results -Electrical/Gas Energy Saving *ftw SBaseline Rated Measured Proposed Savings Baseline Proposed Savings I Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) Energy (kWh) Demand (kW) City Hall Interior 70,490 274 38,510 169 31,980 105 70,171 273 38,566 169 31,605 104 City Hall Exterior 5,081 14 1,892 6 3,189 7 5,081 14 1,892 6 3,189 7 Cemetery 1,016 3 263 1 753 2 1,016 3 263 1 753 2 Yost Pool 28,658 79 7,266 20 21,392 59 28,571 78 7,266 20 21,305 58 Senior Center 10,622 1 29 3,390 9 7,231 20 10,897 30 3,390 9 7,507 21 Public Works Interior 9,921 50 4,926 32 4,995 18 9,694 49 5,020 32 4,674 17 Public Works Exterior 35,574 97 11,717 32 23,858 65 34,839 95 11,717 32 23,122 63 Public Safety Exterior 9,703 36 4,748 18 4,955 18 9,649 36 4,438 16 5,211 20 Public Safety Roadway 30,537 84 7,818 21 22,719 62 29,280 80 7,875 22 21,405 59 Park Roadway 3,557 1 10 1,625 4 1,932 1 5 3,955 11 1,625 1 4 2,330 6 Old Public Works Exterior 14,213 39 3,149 9 11,064 30 14,213 39 3,149 9 11,064 30 Medowdale Exterior 2,247 6 613 2 1,634 4 2,260 6 618 2 1,643 5 Library Exterior Parking 37,633 103 10,889 30 26,744 73 1 36,792 1 101 10,240 28 26,552 73 Frances Anderson Exterior 32,321 98 16,496 65 15,825 33 23,471 70 8,186 30 15,286 40 Totalsl 291,574 1 922 113,302 419 178,271 503 279,890 885 104,245 380 175,646 505 63% energy savings U r r a Packet Pg. 154 arks tL Green Practices Habitat Restoration Environmental Education Capital Projects ration 5.2.a Fast Acting Ready To Use i ��RORGANIC GARDENING Non -Selective: Controls most weeds, grasses & broadleaves KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHI LORE "2�' m ll:, CAl1TIONL.�..I�.�.I�o,.aY �N1111IINONITr'l, Yr.�.uiwuuy5l�I. m.N. w11Y.1 YI liiin XE ICCMIkAIS 11 f1. 01.�t70.10 mL� t Q Packet Pg. 156 -- *-I-- -- -- U--LAof R Y r .. � ,, � c - � �•�, ._. •• �,� Via. �� f f Fsd r�:i! �' 2' r'7• �.y' fa�dq x`#�� `F T �, �'I}inn� �-y ��i' - 1 a ..�:e� 'y�'.. � •i'" �%- � ' 'c �.Fil� �+�a yr, `_� �� � _• -� � / � - > �f. � r •max ,•�7 ^� �i fS� �sSajir : =r �s`� ,-.J►; Lam'' 1• �' ��� . �' +^'I_^ *"c er\: lid fill 14 Of dr Packet Pg. 157 No Habitat Restoration is underway in the following areas... Meadowdale Natural Area 12,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant removal and native planting Hutt Park 10,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant removal and native planting Yost Park 8,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant removal and native planting City Park Forest: One acre of invasive plant removal and native planting. Wetland: 5,000 sq. ft. wetland enhancement and demonstration project Edmonds Marsh Maintenance in 10,000 square feet of previously Z restored buffer including planting, weeding, and a I mulching. Daylighting Willow Creek Hickman Park 4,000 square feet of erTPacket*Pg.. stabilized and planted 158 5.2.a V r Q Packet Pg. 160 K-6 Education .,y f r R f - , Y�i. by •_ 4 � y h as 9f� During spring of 2018, more than 4,000 school -aged children participated in K-6 education classes including the Discover the Forest, Spring Beach Ranger, and NatiirP Packet Pg. 161 Discovery series 14t Public Outreach Packet Pg. 162 i 001 lot desk ram. a 4- t � � Fi � . ,. - �- -6k •,. �- •+�' _ 'armor-- +^ ,� Watershed Education 1V IN 4r v 4r 0 4ft 4T Rain Garde Education �r , 0 F,q..o �9l s Nomod r Wq KIYAkKVALW40 a,d Awmbo R" Somi ho Rv Lane d WA p1rOM and ran Dygpn b—h Pmp..d A.—N. P. I Packet Pg. 165 1 5.2.a • • , d a Z w S in rl - - CD -� L a i •5- �y tir -_ r 1 , , �. � C F -y ' f �, Packet Pg. 166 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies for the Wayside Horn Project. Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On September 8, 2015, Council approved the Professional Services Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies for the Wayside Horn project. On September 24, 2017, Council approved the BNSF Agreements for the Wayside Horn project at the Main St. and Dayton St. Railroad Crossings. On January 8, 2019, staff presented this item to the Park & Public Works Committee. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement and authorize a first quarter budget amendment for $19,500. Narrative In July 2015, Quiet Zone Technologies (QZT) was hired to complete the design and construction of the Wayside Horn Project. Since 2015, the City has been in negotiations and coordination with BNSF to complete the permitting, design and placement of the Wayside Horn System. The final design was completed in spring 2018, but the City's project was placed on -hold after BNSF notified the City of their intent to replace the cantilever signal structures at Main St. BNSF completed their project in November and the City is now coordinating the final approval with BNSF to begin the installation of the Wayside Horn System. The initial contract amount with QZT was $208,042. There have been several changes and cost adjustments to their scope of work based on the City's coordination with BSNF and their requirements on where the Wayside Horn system could be installed in their right of way. Refer to Exhibit A of the Supplement. The largest impacts to the scope of work were the following modifications: Addition of a new light and support pole on the northeast corner at the Main St. crossing. The existing pole had to be replaced with a new pole that was designed to support the weight of the Quiet Zone Indicator and Control Cabinet. Additional boring of conduits and trenching, pot -holing and installing junction boxes to intercept and use the abandoned watermain to connect to the City's existing electrical service on the north side of Dayton St, west of BNSF's tracks. Eliminated Task 3, Public Outreach from the scope of work. Packet Pg. 167 8.1 The proposed Supplemental Agreement is for an additional $43,289. This amount includes a total management reserve of $18,864 for unforeseen conditions during construction. BUDGET: The initial budget for this project was set at $350,000. The amount was funded by $50,000 from the General Fund and $300,000 from REET funds. The total project cost is now estimated at $458,000. A large percentage of the increase is due to BNSF's estimated cost for permits ($18,199) and required upgrades ($112,097) to their cabinets at both crossings. The City has paid for the permits and has paid $43,202 to date for the cabinet upgrades. BNSF has not provided a final cost for the cabinet upgrades to the City and it is possible that their actual cost may underrun their estimate of $112k. A fourth quarter budget amendment for $88,569 was approved in December, 2018 to provide additional funds. The 2018 budget amendment increased the total project budget to $438,569 ($350,000+$88,569). If necessary, staff will submit a 1st quarter budget amendment for an additional $19,500 from the REET 126 Fund to increase the total project budget to $458,069 ($350,000+$88,569+$19,500). Refer to the Budget Summary for a breakdown of estimated expenditures. (Attachment B). Attachments: QZT Supplemental Agreement Attachment B - Wayside Horn Budget Wayside Horn Presentation Packet Pg. 168 Original Contract No. Supplemental Agreement l No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 ST" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 . 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Wayside Horns WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Quiet Zone Technologies (QZT), hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Wayside Horns project, dated September 30, 2015 ("Underlying Agreement"); and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work for the Underlying Agreement have been identified; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The Underlying Agreement of September 30, 2015 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 at Section I and Attachment A shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 Contract Price. The payment terms set forth in the Underlying Agreement at Section 2 and Attachment B shall be amended to increase the total contract amount of the Underlying Agreement and otherwise include the additional payment terms outlined in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The $208,041.70 total contract amount set forth in the Underlying Agreement is hereby amended to include an additional amount of $43,288.66 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this Supplemental Agreement 1. As a result, the total contract amount is increased to $251,330.36 ($208,041.70 plus $43,288.86). In no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to the Underlying Agreement exceed the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND THIRTY-SIX CENTS ($251,330.36). Packet Pg. 169 8.1.a 1.3 Term of Agreement. Section 3 of the Underlying Agreement shall be revised to read as follows: 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by the parties. QZT agrees to commence work under this Agreement for the design and installation phases of the project on dates to be specified in written "Notices to Proceed" to be provided by the City. This Agreement shall expire upon QZT's completion of the project and the City's acceptance thereof, unless terminated sooner pursuant to the provisions of Section 10, below. All provisions herein that contain ongoing obligations of the parties will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 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. DONE this day of , 2018. CITY OF EDMONDS QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Bv: Mayor David O. Earling ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney By: _ Title: Packet Pg. 170 8.1.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2018, 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: \\edm w-deptfs\Engineering\StafflMegan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5AA.Trackside Warning\QZT.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 171 EXHIBIT A 8.1.a Updated SOV for Wayside Horn Installations in Edmonds, WA Date: 1 l /05/18 The original approved contract amount was $208,041.70. The current project amount is $251,330.37, for a total increase of $43,288.66. The reasons for the project cost increase is detailed below. Task 1: Diagnostic Team Review: This section did not change, all tasks associated with the Diagnostic Team Review have been completed. Task 2: Engineering & Construction Drawings: Our engineering consultant provides us with a lump sum cost for this task. For the purpose of the SOV, we have divided the amount equally between the two crossings. The original engineering estimate was $17,868.22. The revised estimate for engineering is $22,782.98. This is a total increase of $4,914.76. The increase in the total amount required for Engineering & Construction Drawings are due to the changes in the location of the Horn Assemblies from separate masts to the existing BNSF Cantilever structures at the Main Street crossing and also for changes to the location of the underground cable runs for both crossings. This change required additional drawings to be submitted to BNSF for approval. We were also required to design a different mounting method to allow for the Horn Assemblies to be mounted to the cantilevers. Task 3: Public Outreach: This section was in the original scope of work for an amount of $13,297.44. This task has been removed at the direction of the City. There have been no costs accrued for this task at this time. If the City decides to implement this task, this amount will be billed. Task 4: Onsite Wayside Horn Material (Optional): At this time, we have been instructed to start ordering the material for the project. The original estimated amount for the material is as follows: Main Street: $55,936.90 Dayton Street: $39,648.70 The updated amounts for the material as of November 2018: Main Street: $47,904.33 Dayton Street: $42,689.22 The difference between the original estimate and current estimate are: Main Street: ($8,032.57) Dayton Street: $3,040.52 The reason for the decrease in cost for Main Street is due to a change in the number of Horn Assemblies and type of control cabinet. Originally, we anticipated 3 Horn Assemblies and a 2 Horn End of Line Cabinet. With BNSF allowing for the mounting of the Horn Assemblies on the existing cantilever structures, we were able to eliminate one Horn Assembly and change to a 1 Horn End of Line Cabinet. The reason for the increase in cost for Dayton Street is there has been an increase in the cost of the field material from 2016. The costs of the foundation, mast and signal cable has increased. Task 5: Installation (Optional): The estimated costs for installation for both locations have increased by $35,556.06. Main Street's installation cost has decreased by $9,814.77. Packet Pg. 172 8.1.a Main Street Original Estimate: $27,191.85 Main Street Current Estimate: $17,377.08 This decrease in cost is primarily due to BNSF performing most of the boring required for the Wayside Horn signal cables. BNSF performed this work during the upgrades to the crossing. The installation of the Wayside Horns for Main Street will require minimal boring and only the labor to install the material. The estimated cost for the installation for Dayton Street has increased by $45,370.83. Dayton Street Original Estimate: $17,377.08 Dayton Street Current Estimate: $63,499.08 This increase in cost is primarily due to the change of location of the electrical service. The original planned source of the electrical service was determined to not be a City owned service meter and required an alternative source for electrical service. The original location of the electrical service was not going to require any boring and minimal restoration work. The new location of the electrical service will be from an existing service meter located approximately 188 feet to the northeast from the proposed location of the Wayside Horn. In order to bring power from the existing service meter, there will be required boring, intercepting the existing abandoned water line, trenching, pot -holing, installation of junction boxes and restoration work. The first bore will be from the proposed location of the Wayside to horn and run approximately 45 feet, to the northwest, underneath the sidewalk on the south side of Dayton Street. We will be required to pot -hole Dayton Street to expose any utilities running underneath Dayton Street to allow for the second boring run. The second bore will run at a 90 degree angle from the side walk approximately 40 feet under Dayton Street running to the northeast and terminate adjacent to the abandoned water line. We will be required to excavate a pit on Dayton Street to expose the abandoned water line. We will then push a pipe through the abandoned water line with the boring machine for approximately 85 feet to the northwest. There will then be another excavation pit to expose the abandoned water line approximately 25 feet from the existing service meter. A trench will then be cut through the street, sidewalk and planter to reach the service meter. We will also install three junction boxes along the power cable run. A power cable will be installed in the new pipe from the existing service meter to the location of the Wayside Horn. All of the bore pits, pot -holes, excavation pits and trenching will be filled in and new asphalt and/or concrete pored to restore the roadway and sidewalk to their existing condition. This additional work was not planned for, nor accounted for, in the original proposal and, therefore, is the reason for the cost increase. Task 6: Main Street Light Pole: The City has requested that a new light pole be installed at Main Street for the purposes of mounting the Quiet Zone Indicator and End -of -Line Cabinet. This task was not covered in the original proposal and can be completed for a cost of $17,172. The City is to provide all material for installing the Light Pole. We will install a new foundation and remove and dispose of the old foundation. Management Reserve: The combined Management Reserves have increased by $4,773.60. We do not anticipate utilizing the management reserves, but the amounts were included per the City's request. Packet Pg. 173 EXHIBIT B 8.1.a City of Edmonds, WA - Wayside Horn Installation - Project Schedule of Value: Contract Number: Financial Project No. Contractor Name: Quiet Zone Technologies Date Submitted: 6-Nov-1 a Pay Application #: Approved By : CURRENT PERIOD Previous Project Bis to Date Total Billed to Date Balance to Finish Comp Ori 1 SOV ginalim Change from Original SOV Estimated Calculated Item Description Hours Hourly Rate Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount % Complete Amount Billed Task 1: Diagnostic Team Review Main Street 30 $ 284.29 1 LS 8,528.73 $ 8,528.73 100.0% - 8,528.73 8,528.73 - 100.0% 8,528.73 - Dayton Street 30 $ 284.29 1 LS 8,528.73 $ 8,528.73 100.0% - 8,528.73 8,528.73 100.0% 8,528.73 17,057.46 - Subtotal: $ 17,057.46 Task 2: Engineering & Construction Drawings Main Street 30 $ 379.72 1 LS 11,391.49 $ 11,391.49 3.3% - 379.72 379.72 11,011.77 3.3% 8,934.11 2,457.38 Dayton Street 30 $ 379.72 1 LS 11,391.49 $ 11,391.49 3.3% - 379.72 379.72 11,011.77 3.3% 8,934.11 2,457.38 17,868.22 4,914.76 Subtotal: $ 22,782.98 Task 3: Public Outreach Main Street 24 $ - 1 LS $ - - - - - 0.0% 6,648.72 (6,648.72) Dayton Street 24 $ - 1 LS $ - - 0.0% 6,648.72 (6,648.721 13,297.44 (13,297.44) Subtotal: $ - Design/Public Outreach Subtotal $ 39,840.44 $ - $ 17,816.89 $ 17,816.89 $ 22,023.55 0.0% $ 48,223.12 $ (8,382.68) Management Reserve (10 % of Design/Public Outreach Phase Subtotal) 1 LS 3,984.04 $ 3,984.04 3,984.04 0.0% 4,822.31 (838.27) $ $ 17,816.89 $ 17,816.89 $ 26,007.59 $ 53,045.43 $ (9,220.95) Complete Design Phase/Public Outreact $ 43,824.48 Task 4: Onsite Wayside Horn Material (Optional) Main Street 1 LS 47,904.33 $ 47,904.33 - - - 47,904.33 0.0% 55,936.90 (8,032.57) Dayton Street 1 LS 42,689.22 $ 42,689.22 - - - 42,689.22 0.0% 39648.70 3,040.52 95,585.60 (4,992.05) Subtotal: $ 90,593.55 Task 5: Installation (Optional) Main Street 1 LS 17,377.08 $ 17,377.08 - - - 17,377.08 0.0% 27,191.85 (9,814.77) Dayton Street 1 LS 63,499.08 $ 63,499.08 63,499.08 0.0% 18,128.25 45,370.83 45,320.10 35,556.06 Subtotal: $ 80,876.16 Task 6: Main Street Light Pole 1 LS 17,172.00 $ 17,172.00 - - - 17,172.00 0.0% - 17,172.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 188,641.71 $ 140,905.70 $ 47,736.01 Material/Installation Subtotal $ 188,641.71 Management Reserve (10 % of Material/Installation Phase Subtotal) 1 LS 18,864.17 $ 18,864.17 - - - 18,864.17 0.0% 14,090.57 4,773.60 $ $ $ $ 207,505.88 $ 154,996.27 $ 52,509.61 Material/Installation $ 207,505.88 1 1 1 Pro-ectTotel $ 251,330.37 7% $ $ 17,816.89 $ 17,816.89 $ 233,513.47 90J 208,041.70 43,288.66 Packet Pg. 174 8.1.b Wayside Horn Project Costs (Main St. / Dayton St. Railroad Crossing) Task Original Budget Current Budget Reason for modification Notes Removal of Public Outreach from QZT scope of Design Consultant $48,225 $39,841 work Design City Staff $20,000 $20,000 Project started in July'16 ROW / Easements / Permits $18,199 $18,199 Easements needed at both crossings Addition of various cabinet upgrades @ both RR BNSF Cost unknown $112,097 crossing BNSF has billed $43,202 to date BNSF Boring (Main St.) not in scope of work $20,000 Work already completed by BNSF Assume $1,500 per day (for 15 days) / Traffic Control $22,500 $22,500 BNSF flagger required Construction City Staff $7,000 $7,000 Reinstall existing pavers (to be Pavers (as part of restoration on south side of Dayton St.) $1,000 $1,000 completed by City Crews) Light Pole (material only) not in scope of work $10,080 New light pole to be installed on NE corner of Light pole installation (contractor Main St. RR crossing (replace existing one) for task) not in scope of work $17,172 dual direction indicator and slave cabinet Main St. Crossing Large portion of directional boring already (contractor task) $83,129 $65,281 completed by BNSF Change to electrical service location (costs for directional boring, trenching, junction boxes...) / original plan was to connect to Port of Edmonds Dayton St. Crossing electrical service on the SW corner of RR (contractor task) $57,777 $106,188 crossing but couldn't be achieved 10% Management Reserve (from contractor tasks only) $14,091 $18,865 TOTAL COST $271,921 + BNSF Cost $458,223 Packet Pg. 175 8.1.c IDE HORN UP, UPPLEMENTAL APPR 20 City of Edmond a Packet Pg. 176 8.1.c Agenda Introduction ■ Existing conditions ■ Proposed conditions ■ Remaining schedule ■ Fundingsummary Conclusion Packet Pg. 177 8.1.c 4- 0 IntroductionCU ■ Two at -grade railroad crossings within Downtown Edmonds CL - Main St. - Dayton St.L. a c L ■ On -going locomotive noise = ■ 45 daily train crossings (from Sound Transit, Amtrak, Freight / BNSF trains) ■ Average daily traffic - 6,000 vehicles per day at both crossings (along with high non -motorized transportation activity) ■ Project goal 0 - Reduce noise pollution N d ■ Design phase started with Quiet Zone Technologies (QZT) in Fall `15 L ■ BNSF also had to complete improvements at Main St. RR crossing R AMTRAK E RAIL 141A Y t SouNDTRar 2 a Packet Pg. 178 8.1.c Existing conditions (Main St.) Packet Pg. 179 Existing conditions (Dayton St.) Ex. Service Meter �,�•ti ;_TINt FA Ex. bungalow r Ex. Cantilevers Packet Pg. 180 8.1.c Proposed conditions ■ Installation of wayside horns /indicators at both crossings ■ New conduit to be installed to complete connection to existing City service meters ■ Installation of new light pole on NE corner of Main St. Crossing (for indicator) ■ BNSF is completing other improvements (as part of WSDOT grant -funded project) - Upgraded existing cantilevers - New bungalow on NW corner of Main St. RR crossing - Additional pedestrian signage coming out of Ferry Terminal Packet Pg. 181 Proposed Conditions (Main St. Crossing) o X a Y. d N d L d TO EDMONDS FERRY DOCK _ t� d Ac Whox Pater O LJ A49NDV LOT O I aY d k h-P'-k are k NO 1 •WaaRcrnaron -- --- -- _ ------------------ —� -- O YMN iRACf m _ � o 1 l ' LTO swmm � L Ea HOW fAOW = • OOAL aPerna w L MAIN STREET = d �N A F11 � -I0151wL PL FEET Am. a"••••� � _ E'MMC OR"Tm JM f7 THE l5,W —C- CTRCECRM.W M ISAAO HOWL $an YGLENOE .VYPEA Jll awwA fiJA TO7W FAR EW a TILE 7RAVELEO ROADHAY W nmEA To woE H3A u.n. MAW STREET C 9%R WAL PMEG W as g1°M" AS S1OMN M 'HE UA MR Np1N B° V �rM RdA CITY OF DMONDS, WArm . LVN s«ac LY.kc+aYR w r FD wPr-+ r SfTF LAYOUT 10 -2 ri0 wh fw. Loc 4 WAt PEGrC+ aX n aw!S 0050 a W OM — NTS a a Packet Pg. 182 8.1.c Proposed conditions (Dayton St. Crossing) Packet Pg. 183 8.1.c Budget Task Original Budget Current Budget Reason for modification Notes Removal of Public Outreach from CUT scope of Design Consultant 548,225 $39,941 work Design City Staff S20,000 $20,000 Project started in Fall'15 ROW / Easements / Permits S18,199 $18,199 Easements needed at both crossings Addition of various cabinet upgrades @ both RR BNSF Cost unknown $112,097 crossing BNSF has billed $43,202 to date BNSF Boring (Main St.) not in scope of work $20,000 Work already completed by BNSF Assume $1,500 per day (for 15 days) / Traffic Control $22,500 $22,500 BNSF flagger required Construction City Staff $7,000 $7,000 Pavers (as part of restoration of i Reinstall existing pavers (to be complete south side of Dayton St.) $1,000 S1,000 by City Crews) Light Pole (material only) nut in scope of work $10,080 New light pole to be installed on NE corner of Light pole installation (contractor Main St. RR crossing (replace existing one) for task) not in scope of work $17,172 dual direction indicator and slave cabinet Main St. Crossing Large portion of directional boring already (contractor task) S83,129 565,281 completed by BNSF Change to electrical service location (costs for directional boring, trenching, junction boxes...) / original plan was to connect to Port of Edmonds Dayton St. Crossing electrical service on the SW corner of RR crossing (contractor task) S57,777 $106,188 but couldn't be achieved 109'o Management Reserve (Ir Lan: contractor tasks only) $14,091 S18,865 TOTAL COST $271,921 + BNSF Cost $458,223 4- 0 r= 0 CU r- a� a c r a� 0 L a c L 2 a� .y R r a Packet Pg. 184 8.1.c Remaining schedule ■ Final approval of contract w/ BNSF ■ Start of construction by City's contractor - Duration of work ■ Completion of contractor work ■ BNSF final connection work 4- 0 c 0 CU c L. January 2019 0 February 2019 2 to 3 weeks CU March 20190. TBD r- 0 N d L IL c L 0 _ R Packet Pg. 185 8.1.c Action Items ■ Authorize Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies in the amount of $43,289. ■ Authorize a first quarter 2019 budget amendme for $19,500 from the REET 126 Fund. Packet Pg. 186 8.1.c QUESTIONS ??? w 0 c 0 c� c m m L a. m r V .O L a c L 0 Packet Pg. 187 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that transfers the quasi-judicial decision -making role from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the hearing examiner, to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at its May 23, 2018 meeting and held a public hearing on July 25, 2018, after which the Board adopted a recommendation that was forwarded to the City Council. The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council meeting and moved to hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments. The Council's hearing was held on October 2, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the City Council's meeting included consideration of potential amendments detailing a process where the Council would consider a request to file a judicial appeal on the November 20, 2018 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Provide direction to staff on the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions and direct staff to bring back for Council consideration an ordinance that is based on Council's guidance. Introduction During discussions on modifying the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions, it was suggested that the City Council be able to initiate a judicial appeal of a hearing examiner or Architectural Design Board decision upon request of a citizen who believe a decision has been issued in error. Following the public hearing on October 2, 2018, the Council directed staff to bring back code amendments that would detail the process for the Council initiating a judicial appeal. At the November 20, 2018 Council meeting, staff presented potential code amendments (Exhibit 1 and outlined below) on the new process that would allow the City Council to initiate judicial appeals. Tonight, staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether the Council wishes to maintain its current role in quasi-judicial decisions or to move into a role as a potential appellant detailed in the potential code amendments in Exhibit 1 and outlined below. Exhibit 2 is a table prepared by the City Attorney which provides a comparison of various issues for the Council sitting in either role. In order to set up the discussion, staff will run through the Type III process for both the current closed record review process and the potential Council -as- appellant process. See the flow chart in Exhibit 3. Packet Pg. 188 9.1 Various other code amendments have been proposed during this review that relate to the City's decision -making process (see the October 2, 2018 Council agenda on this matter). Should the City Council ultimately decide to retain its role in closed record appeals, the remaining proposed code amendments should still be considered because these amendment clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings (New Chapter 20.06 ECDC), eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law (Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040), and provide other clean-up and clarifications related to decision processes. Potential Code Amendments Detailing Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision The proposed code amendments contained in Exhibit 1 fall into three categories; 1) providing notice to the City Council on Type III applications, 2) adding language regarding the City's intent for Council judicial appeal, and 3) detailing the process for a citizen to request a Council appeal. Nnfire The first set of proposed code amendments would require that the City Council be emailed the Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Final Decision on all Type III permit applications. These amendments would ensure the City Council is aware of a Type III permit application that is moving through the City's process. Staff reports for Type III decisions are posted on the City's agenda page and the City Council will be able to access the staff report one week prior to the public hearing. Another amendment in the notice section includes adding information as to how to inform the City Council of alleged errors in a decision in the Notice of Final Decision. Currently the Notice of Final Decisions contains information on available appeals. The proposed amendment would ensure that Notice of Final Decision also informs parties of record that they may request the Council to file an appeal on a decision that has been issued in error. City Council as Party of Record in Type III Proceedings The two paragraphs in this new subsection signal it is the City of Edmonds' intent that the City Council may appeal Type III decisions. These paragraphs are primarily intended to signal to the Courts that as trustees of the public interest, the City Council is a party of record, regardless of whether the City Council actively participated in the Type III decision proceedings, and retains the right to commence a judicial review under LUPA (Chapter 36.70C RCW). Informing the City Council of Alleged Errors in Type III Decisions This new subsection provides the details on how a citizen may request the City Council file a judicial appeal on behalf of the City. The citizen request must come from a party of record. The request should come after the party of record has already sought reconsideration of the decision and should be made within seven days of the decision on reconsideration; the request may be submitted in writing or verbally at a regular City Council meeting. This section also notes that the City Council may submit a judicial appeal on its own initiative regardless of whether a request for appeal was made to the City Council under this section. Packet Pg. 189 9.1 Next Steps After guidance is provided tonight about the Council's role in quasi-judicial proceedings, an ordinance (consistent with that guidance) would be prepared and presented to the Council at a future meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision Exhibit 2: Quasi-judicial Process Comparision Chart Exhibit 3: Type III-B Flow Chart - Comparison Exhibit 4: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 5: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 7: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 8: November 20, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 190 9.1.a Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision a ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) J H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City r- Council by email. .2 ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice of public hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, aka description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by Pmail_ 20.06.XXX City council as party of record in Type III proceedings. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor of having the ability to participate in such matters as a party of record at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the City's code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Type III applications are of particular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code Packet Pg. 191 9.1.a adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous TVpe III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the citv council shall be an official party of record in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties of record. The city council retains its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. 20.06.XXX. Informing the city council of alleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. A party of record, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the City and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a Party of record should: 1. Have alreadv sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010: 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7) days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative/executive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting. B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. The provisions of this chapter allowing for City Council appeals of hearing examiner decisions are not intended to confer third -party beneficiary status upon other parties of Packet Pg. 192 9.1.a record: anv such aooeals broueht by the Citv Council are brought on behalf of the Citv. not on behalf of a party who might have requires such an appeal. E W a as 20.06.160 Judicial appeals. (MOVED FROM 20.07.006) The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to J file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within r- 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, ° N 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. .n Packet Pg. 193 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 9.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Risk to City of Damage WCIA indicates that its Little risk. Claim cities do not lose such cases frequently, but when they do, the damages can be in the millions of dollars. Risk of Personal Liability Little risk due to qualified Almost no risk. to Individual immunity, as long Councilmembers likely Councilmembers conduct is objectively protected by absolute reasonable. legislative immunity. Cost to Citizen Appellant $500 for administrative $0 if City Council decides appeal + subsequent to appeal and citizens possibility of $240 opts not to; $240 if City (LUPA) Council decides not to appeal and citizen appeals instead Accessibility to Pro Se May be perceived as May be perceived as less Litigants more accessible accessible Legal fees incurred by Overall appeal process is Overall appeal process is citizen Appellant longer, which could drive shorter, but moves to up legal fees; depends court faster, which could on whether lawyer be perceived as represents citizen at all increasing likelihood of stages legal fee exposure Ability to Evaluate Council would only be Council would be able to Hearing Examiner's reading decisions after observe and/or Performance the fact participate in hearing examiner hearings Councilmembers' Ability Council take direct action Council would ask to Correct Hearing to reverse the Examiner superior court judge to Examiner Errors reverse the Examiner in LUPA action Page 1 of 4 0 a .2 .y CY 0 0 E L a J U c .N �L CU CL 0 U 0 a c� N x w r a� E r r Q Packet Pg. 194 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 9.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Councilmembers' Ability None, except Type 3A Same as any other to Participate in Hearing citizen; can make written Examiner Pre -decision or oral comments to the Hearings Examiner before the Examiner renders decision Councilmembers' Ability No communication Unlimited to Communicate with allowed on subject of communication with constituents pending or potential constituents appeal, except during the quasi-judicial hearing Standards that constrain Council can only rule Council has broad Council's decision- based on evidence in the legislative discretion in making discretion record, and based on the determining whether to previously adopted appeal; OK to vote to decision criteria; Council appeal partially on the may not be able to justify basis of popular support; a vote for the popular Council must still have outcome good faith belief that Examiner erred What if the applicable City council may have City Attorney would city code is truly the leigh way to need to make argument ambiguous? interpret the ambiguous to court in the event that section as it sees fit; Examiner interpreted court would give ambiguous code appropriate level of incorrectly; Examiner deference to the would be entitled to council's interpretation appropriate level of deference Page 2 of 4 0 L a .y aY 0 0 r E L 0 a D J U 0 .N �L CU CL 0 U Cn 0 0 L IL c� N Z x w r c 0 E M U 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 195 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 9.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Costs to City Council has historically No additional legal fees retained separate under current City attorney to advise city Attorney flat fee council while City structure unless it is Attorney has necessary to retain represented staff; separate attorney to approximate cost $5,000 represent the Examiner's decision; no separate counsel needed; $240 LUPA filing fee Councilmember comfort- "I am comfortable acting "I would rather limit my zone like a judge sometimes" role to legislative and policy matters" Councilmember's role as "I protect the City's "I protect the City's trustee of City interest best by retaining interest best by reducing my ability to reverse the the City's exposure to Examiner when he errs." the risks associated with improper land use decision ma king." Some constituents ... want you to keep the ... want you to champion might... quasi-judicial role in their concerns in hopes that you will vote superior court the way you are pressured to vote Expertise needed Requires Spock-like Requires no particular analytic skill in the midst expertise; can simply of a sometimes charged express your sense as to political environment; whether an error was legal/judicial training made desirable, but not strictly necessary Page 3 of 4 0 L a .2 .y aY 0 0 r L a J U 0 N CU CL E 0 U 0 L IL c� N Z x w r E r r a Packet Pg. 196 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 9.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Council to act as Judge Considerations for Council to act as Prospective Appellant Space taken on council In a complex case with Would likely meet with agenda many issues and/or the City Attorney in many parties of record, executive session to could take a large chunk discuss merits of possible of multiple meetings; LUPA action; short action could end up remanding item in open session to to the Examiner for follow additional fact-finding and then having a second appeal Page 4 of 4 Q Packet Pg. 197 Type III-B Permit Review Process Staff Review Hearing Examine Review Written Arguements Council Review Current Closed Record Review Process * = Council Receives Notice *Council gets email notice at least two weeks before hearing *Council emailed staff report and agenda seven days before hearing Optional Councilmember participation at public hearing. Hearing Examiner decision issued 10 business days after hearing. *Council as party of record receives decision. Party of Record must file request within 10 calendar days (potential code update to 14-days). *Council as party of record receives request for reconsideration. Decision on reconsideration issued 10 business days after request for reconsideration. *Council as party of record receives decision on reconsideration. Potential Council Judicial Appeal Process *Party of record files appeal to City Council within 14 days of decision on reconsideration or original decision if request for reconsideration not filed. Optional. Written arguments, rebuttals, and surrebuttal 12 though 2 days before closed record hearing before City Council. May occur over a number of Council meetings. Council may affirm, modify or reverse Hearing Examiner decision. With agreement from applicant, decision may be remanded. Council Considers Request for Judicial Appeal rn m U 0 L IL .2 3 N R a c 0 as c Y R c 0 tv E L IL 0 N c 0 J c 0 rn •L a E 0 U R t U 0 U- m a� a M *Party of record makes request f Council judicial appeal within sev w days of decision on reconsideration. aD E t c� Y Y Council, City Attorney, and staf Q discuss merits of decision in _ executive session. Majority of Council decides in open sessior whether or not to file a judicial appeal. City Attorney prepares and file appeal if Council decided to appeal. Must be filed within 21 days after decision on reconsideration (or initial decision if reconsideration not requested). Any party of recor may also file a judicial appeal regardless of Council decision. Applicant or appellant may file judicial appeal. Packet Pg. 198 9.1.d Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City's current decision -making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 199 9.1.d decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers from the text. • Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 Packet Pg. 200 9.1.d being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27' without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 201 9.1.e review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 121, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council's intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING -QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003: • Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review. • Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required. Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III -A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III -A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs). • Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site -specific rezones. • Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area -wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision -making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council's discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision -making Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 202 9.1.e making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows: • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III -A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated. • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site -specific rezones. • A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code. • The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV -A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi- step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill 5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process. • An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed. • All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director. • ECDC 17.00.030.0 would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed -record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process. • ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be added. • There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 203 9.1.e ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action. The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the development agreement. For example, a site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site -specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed -record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council's hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn't ask the questions and get all of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council's review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site -specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board. Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However, it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well. Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision - making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 204 9.1.e that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council's decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents' viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney's Office is retained on a flat -fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City's case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 205 9.1.e of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson's written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. " He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision -making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn't help represent the citizen's concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 206 9.1.e City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung's earlier comment comparing the City Council's role to that of a jury. He explained that for site -specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council's direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien's earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn't so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember's decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti -development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 207 9.1.e Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real -life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday's 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City's codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 208 9.1.f implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience's objections. The Housing Director and the consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la -la land. He questioned not having any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since 2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens' support, he asked that they be respected. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for council members o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 • Decision processes o Administrative Decisions ■ Type I - Staff decision no notice ■ Type II - Staff decision with notice o Quasi-judicial Decisions ■ Type III - Hearing Examiner/ADB ■ Type IV - Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone ■ Appeals of Type II and Type III-B - Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing - Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing o Legislative ■ Type V ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions Quasi-judicial Decisions o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial ■ Legislative decisions establish policies for future application ■ Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies o Strict procedural requirements ■ Property notice of hearing ■ Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 209 9.1.f ■ Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e., no ex-parte contacts) ■ An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest ■ Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition • ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions with revisions ■ Move III-B decisions moved to III -A column, Type becomes III ■ Type IV -A moved to Type I column ■ Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial ■ Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments • Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff • ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council • ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300 feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process ■ New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application • ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings • Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative, but must be consistent with local development code • Next steps o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 210 9.1.f o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on that agenda Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change, explaining it takes citizens' voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court. Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor's short subdivision when the hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council. Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that explains why this an appropriate role, "In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi- judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it's because the City Council can make better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then that's a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner's errors. There was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner's decision under LUPA. For example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf to convince the court that the hearing examiner's decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner's decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn't, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker." Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without jeopardizing Council decisions. Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven't been decisions overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about the matter very thoroughly. Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 211 9.1.f believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens' advocate by taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf of the citizens assuming the City Attorney's flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However, many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does not necessarily require hiring counsel. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board, specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City's appeal fees: • Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400 • Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500 • Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880 Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson's comments that state the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases, because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner's decisions but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood. With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner's decisions, not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council's interpretation versus the interpretation of one person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She agreed with Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 212 9.1.f it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the minutes. On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tern Nelson said they are no longer new. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens' part as well as the Councilmember's. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about; whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I'm concerned too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect. Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was filed following the City Council's action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City's way. Just because the City has not an adverse judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City's chances of always prevailing. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact - check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7% in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 213 9.1.f reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision because the Council determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner's decision, it would have gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City's behalf to convince the judge that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council or Superior Court reviewing appeals. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already vested. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi- judicial function. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role. Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff. The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like. He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it outlined for the City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to read the cases so they understand the Council's role, anticipating staff could provide links to the information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 214 9.1.f fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation. She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a Councilmember recused themselves. Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi- judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien's part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens; however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach. 2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to the Council. He reviewed: • Background o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016 o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06- 001 o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act ■ Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction ■ CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction o SMP Periodic Review • This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections o ECDC 23.50.010.13, Wetland Ratings. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands • History repeats itself (almost) o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018 ■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update." • Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores." Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables 2016 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 215 9.1.g Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff s recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed to protect environment. Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant's BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since the Fire Department may require a 20-foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no. Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead -ends and is only 20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without trespassing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PRnC'F,ggF,C Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for councilmembers o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 216 9.1.g Council Quasi-judicial Decisions o Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. o Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and site specific rezone. o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. Potential Code Amendments o Type III-B o Type IV -A o ECDC 17.00.030 - Public agency variances o ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of Approved Permits o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) o Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003 - Type III-B o Revisions to the table of land use decisions o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to appeal on the behalf of citizens ■ Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDS o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council's role in review of final formal plats and PRDs to staff ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 16 Packet Pg. 217 9.1.g o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments. Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday's list serve poll: No appeals to City Council Appeals to City Council • Bainbridge Is • Lynnwood • Bellevue • Bremerton • Marysville • Bellingham • Buckley • MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats • Clyde Hill • Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals • Duvall • Snohomish • Ellensburg • Everett • Shoreline • Kirkland • Federal Way • Spokane Vly • SeaTac (considering getting out) • Lakewood • • Snoqualmie • Sumner Under review: Renton Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4 was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not identical. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non -quasi- judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed there were more. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume most Council's had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 17 Packet Pg. 218 9.1.g long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds switched to the Hearing Examiner process in1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation. The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process. John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6' Avenue South in 1990, an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side setback was 5 feet but there was a 3'/2 wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house. They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5- foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a 3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was what the citizens who elected them expect. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit 21 in the packet, highlighting ACE's support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current process for quasi-judicial appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 18 Packet Pg. 219 9.1.g Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 220 9.1.g Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner's decision -making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 221 9.1.g quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens. Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson pointed out staff s research included two appeals that required counsel for the City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects. Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process in writing. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen's behalf. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since 2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember's job. Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program. She did not see any reason to change the current process. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not, administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council's decision on a Hearing Examiner's to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended moving it to another meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 222 9.1.g ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN. Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen's behalf. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda. 2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR "STYROFOAM") IN FOOD PACKAGING Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda. 3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9t'', Let's Talk about Transparency, relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl -Hubbard, Vice President of the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney. Ms. Earl -Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws. She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press, they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers, television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My Edmonds News. Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel -to -gavel and may be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 223 9.1.h City Engineer Rob English drainage currently runs down Bell Street to an existing infiltration facility that does not have the capacity to handle the runoff. In working with Public Works operations, the City's stormwater engineer identified a solution to take the line across 1015 Bell Street and connect to an existing storm drain in the alley north of Bell Street. There would be a 10-foot easement on the western side of the parcel to install the pipe. It was the consensus of Council to forward this to the Consent Agenda. 2. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recalled the Council has previously discussed the Council's role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. Most of the discussion has been the Council's role in Type III decisions. Following the October 2nd public hearing, Council requested staff return with code language reflecting the Council acting on behalf of citizens by filing a judicial appeal. Mr. Lien reviewed potential amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the process for Council appeal of a Type III decision: • ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice ofpublic hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, and a description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by email. • 20. 06.= City council as party of record in Tyke III procee&gs_(NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor ofhaving the ability to participate in such matters as a party ofrecord at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the CiU s code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Tyke III applications are ofparticular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous Type III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the city council shall be an official party ofrecord in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties ofrecord. The city council retains Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 224 9.1.h its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. Mr. Taraday said one of main reasons for the addition of 20.06.XXX.B is to satisfy LUPA standing requirements so if the matter reaches Superior Court, it can stay in Superior Court. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to reference to "the City Council" filing a judicial appeal and asked who is responsible as there are seven members. Mr. Lien said that is addressed in the next section. Mr. Lien continued his review of the potential amendments: • 20. 06.XVC Informingthe he city council ofalleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION A. warty ofrecord, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the citizens and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a party of record should: L Have already sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010; 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative%xecutive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventingthe he city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. Mr. Lien advised staff is only seeking input tonight, not a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the statement, "Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting." and asked if that meant the Council would debate the merits of an appeal at the dais. Mr. Taraday said likely the Council would discuss the merit of a case in executive session under potential litigation and make a decision in open session. The Council could have that discussion in public, but he did not recommend it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the public will not know the basis of the decision if the Council discussed the matter in executive session. Mr. Taraday said the request from a citizen is the primary basis for the appeal. Even if the Council were sitting in an appellate capacity, he would also not publicly discuss a close question of law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented as the appellate body, the Council currently has discussions in public. Mr. Taraday said court proceedings would be public, the same as the Council's current appellate decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the Council missed the 7-day appeal timeframe. Mr. Taraday said the 7-days was "should" not "shall." If someone made a request on the 8t1' or 10'1' day, the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 225 9.1.h Council has a reasonable basis for saying no, but the Council still has the ability to appeal. He clarified the Council is not restricted to the 7-day timeline but is subject to the same 21-day LUPA deadline. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what currently ensures a case is heard by the Council within 21 days. Mr. Lien explained the appeal to City Council is an administrative appeal. Currently the Council's decision is the final decision and that starts the 21-day period for a LUPA appeal. If the Hearing Examiner's decision is the final decision by the City, that starts the 21-day period. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council is informed of an appeal request. Mr. Lien answered in the current process, the Council is informed when an appeal is filed. Under the proposed process, Council will receive notice of the Hearing Examiner's final decision. Mr. Taraday explained it was a "belt and suspenders" approach: the belt is the ability for citizens to come to Council and request an appeal and the suspenders are Councilmembers can raise a concern. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the total cost to a citizen. Mr. Lien said currently if a citizen appeals a Type III decision to the City Council, the fee is $500. Under the proposal, a citizen files a request for reconsideration which costs $250 and the Hearing Examiner issues their decision on reconsideration. The citizen could then ask the Council to file a judicial appeal. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized the City Council was interjecting themselves as a legislative body to appeal to Superior Court on behalf of a citizen. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if some Councilmembers did not agree with filing an appeal. Mr. Lien said it would require a majority of Council to initiate an appeal. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the proposed process changes the City Council's role; instead of a quasi-judicial, the Council would essentially become an appellant. Mr. Taraday clarified the phrase, "on behalf of a citizen," the citizen would not be a party to the LUPA appeal unless they fled their own appeal. Filing on behalf of a citizen means the City of Edmonds as directed by the City Council is appealing the Hearing Examiner decision. The citizen may benefit if the City wins and the decision reversed, but he would not be representing the citizen in Superior Court. Councilmember Buckshnis commented fortunately the City currently has a flat rate attorney; if the City returned to an hourly attorney, a lot of money could be spent on this process. Mr. Taraday said the Council could also change the process if they returned to an hourly attorney. Councilmember Teitzel said his interest was not making this harder for citizens and although it sounds very complicated, it actually makes it easier for a citizen to pursue an appeal because they would not have to hire an attorney and the filing fees are less than appealing to the City Council in a quasi-judicial capacity. Mr. Lien said currently, if a citizen files an appeal to City Council, the cost is $500 and the cost to file a judicial appeal at Superior Court is $240. Petitioning the Council to appeal removes a step in the process for the citizen. Councilmember Teitzel commented it also obviates the need for the citizen to hire attorney. Mr. Lien said a citizen can represent themselves pro se in an appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City Council appeals, the City Attorney's office would represent the City. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the proposed process was simpler and less costly for a citizen. Mr. Lien answered it takes one step out of the process, the closed record appeal to City Council, and eliminating a step makes it simpler. Mr. Taraday said it eliminates a step if the Council agrees to appeal which should not be presumed. It is possible there will be citizens who request the Council appeal and the Council will decide not to. Mr. Lien said even if the Council does not agreed to appeal, it still eliminates a step before the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said under the quasi-judicial process, the Council hears the case and renders a decision and the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday advised the judicial appeal never goes away but the administrative appeal goes away on Type III under this proposal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 226 9.1.h COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott asked how and when a citizen would make their case to the City Council. It appeared it would be in writing for discussion in executive session but if it was at a City Council meeting, how did the citizen get on the agenda. Mr. Lien reviewed the timing, a citizen had seven days following the reconsideration decision. The Hearing Examiner typically issues decisions on Fridays. If a citizen chose, they could come to City Council on the following Tuesday. The request would not be in the packet, but the Council would have received the notice of final decision on reconsideration. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the notice to Council would include all the documentation presented to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration. Mr. Lien said the notice of application and notice of public hearing, staff report, and all materials associated with the application are included with the Hearing Examiner agenda. The Council could be added to receive the Hearing Examiner and ADB agendas. If a citizen disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Tibbott asked how they would get on the Council's Tuesday agenda. Mr. Lien said they would not have to be on the agenda; they can make their request by, 1) in writing to the Council's legislative assistant and Development Services Director, or 2) verbal request at a regular City Council meeting during audience comments. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the three -minute audience comment would be their only opportunity to request the Council appeal. Mr. Taraday said it would be up to the Council President if he/she wanted to allow more than three minutes. If a citizen requests an appeal during audience comments, the Council has several options including amending the agenda to add more time to hear from the citizen at the same meeting or the next meeting, scheduling an executive session at that meeting or the next meeting, etc. Councilmember Tibbott said one thing that was compelling to him about the proposed process was it offered the Council an opportunity to walk a site, get more information from the parties, etc. which the Council was not able to do in the existing quasi-judicial review. He asked at what point more exploratory analysis could be done. Mr. Taraday said one of the advantages of the notice provisions was they were designed to invite the City Council into the process at the earliest possible stage. For example, after seeing a notice, a Councilmember could decide to attend and/or testify at the Hearing Examiner hearing, talk with the neighbors, etc., because there are no concerns with ex parte communication that exists in the current process. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Councilmembers could attend the reconsideration hearing. Mr. Lien explained there is no hearing for reconsideration. The Council will receive the request for reconsideration and the concerns raised regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision. With regard to the seven days, Councilmember Mesaros said there are four times a year when there is a fifth Tuesday where the Council does not meet for ten days. The citizen could still submit a written request but the opportunity to make a request at a Council meeting could expire during those ten days. He noted that was especially true in December when the Council does not meet for a period of time due to the holidays. Mr. Lien said the Hearing Examiner meets on the second and fourth Thursday of every month and he has 10 business days to issue a decision, typically the Friday following 14 days. He agreed there were instances there would not be an opportunity to make a request in person and the citizen would need to file a written request. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel said the objection he has he heard to moving away from the quasi-judicial was it may erode the ability of Council to be advocates for their constituents. However, it was his understanding Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 227 9.1.h this revised process may actually improve the Council's ability to advocate for their constituents. Mr. Taraday agreed, because as judges the Council cannot advocate on behalf of one of the parties. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling said he has reason to believe the political dynamics in Washington, D.C. are shifting with the knowledge of another party taking over authority within the House of Representatives. Sound Transit has been trying break loose $1.2B in funding to get light rail to Lynnwood and that was recently accomplished. Sound Transit will also be receiving a $650M low interest loan. In speaking with one of Congressman Larsen's aides, he mentioned for the first time in two years they are getting more return emails when asking questions within the administration which the aide viewed as real progress. Mayor Earling was hopeful many things could be moved along. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel said this week is a time to be thankful. He was thankful for the opportunity to live in the most beautify city in the state, for being able to serve on Council and enacting policies to keep Edmonds beautiful, for his family including his wife and daughters and for being a graduate of Washington State University. He said Go Cougs. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was thankful to be Packers' fan, for people who support the environment and for all the help staff provides. She urged everyone to spread kindness. Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and said go Cougs. Council President Nelson wished a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Councilmember Tibbott wished a Happy Thanksgiving, offered his condolences to Cougs and said go Huskies. Councilmember Mesaros wished a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she spent the past week on the hill in Washington, D.C. and she agreed a new-found energy was resurging. She wished everyone a nice Thanksgiving and go Huskies. Mayor Earling said go Cougs. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 23 Packet Pg. 228 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/22/2019 Update on Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On February 20, 2018, an update on the Highway 99 project was presented to Council. Staff Recommendation For information only. Narrative The Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization project consists of extending the recent transformation of Highway 99 in Shoreline through Edmonds. The scope of the project includes wider replacement sidewalks, new street lighting, raised center medians for access management, safe and attractive crosswalks, improved stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping, softscape treatments and other enhancements to identify the area as being in Edmonds. Access management is also being proposed due to the high accident history along the corridor. The projects identified in the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan will be integrated into the project. $1,000,000 was secured from Connecting Washington to enable the City to start the conceptual phase. Since work began in September 2017, the selected consultant (SCJAlliance) has completed the following tasks (as part of the conceptual phase): Crash history along entire corridor; Preliminary cross -sections; Preliminary cost estimates; Urban design concepts, and Conceptual plans including access management. Prior to the submittal of several grant applications for additional Design and Right -of -Way acquisition funding, a preliminary cost estimate for the entire corridor was completed in April 2018. However due to the very high total project cost (estimated at — $175 Million), the project needed to be divided in seven segments in order to make the project more competitive during the grant application review process. The stretch from 224t" St. SW to 2201" St. SW was determined as the top priority stretch due to the high number of collisions (total cost: — 26 Million). Two grant applications for additional design and right-of-way acquisition funding were submitted for that segment in Spring 2018 but none were secured. Public outreach continued with an Open House in March 2018, another stakeholder meeting in September 2018, and property owner meetings on two different dates in October 2018 where all the completed work was presented. Packet Pg. 229 9.2 Attachments: Hwy 99 Presentation Packet Pg. 230 9.2.a Highway 99 Gateway - Revitalization Project City Council Meeting January 22, �u iy City of Edmonds SCJ ALLIANCE 0 L 2 E r r a Packet Pg. 231 9.2.a Agenda ♦ Introductions ♦ Project Introduction ♦ Access Management Options ♦ Typical Cross Sections ♦ Conceptual Layouts ♦ Outreach Plan ♦ Schedule SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 232 9.2.a Introductions City of Edmonds Project Manager — Bertrand Hauss SO Alliance Project Manager — Lisa Reid SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 0 N CU d 3 a� r 0 0 M rL 0 0 0 L _ Packet Pg. 233 010 l9 [N l [e '• �J Lynnwood R ! J �n I k �Itsp rance - r� '(fj' l auntlaic Ilk r Terrace - 5 CJ_ ALUJ 9.2.a Access Management Options ♦ Median Control ♦ Protected Left -turns ♦ Protected Dual Left -Turns 212th — NB and SB 22oth — NB and SB ♦ 238th — N B ♦ Driveway Revisions Relocate to locations with median openings Consolidate multiple driveways Move further from intersections ♦ Combine with adjacent parcels SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 r_ N CU d 3 a� 0 rL 0 M 0 Packet Pg. 235 9.2.a Cross Sections - Existing SR99 - Existing conditions SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 236 9.2.a SR99 - Proposed 15 Foot Median Section SR99 - Proposed Left Turn Section Packet Pg. 237 9.2.a SR99 - Pro aced Dual Left `furn Section 1 �r - T iN ARL; 00 street Mai lw a iL Mar rF Map Mai :Mar IS Mai Mat Packet Pg. 238 9.2.a I 9fl1ENREF / /I I f/511N0 RM _ _ DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE A LP[ OESGN CROTERM (SR B9 innM1 RAI mmm CLAss PBMCIP4 MDNK ACCESS CONMOL W TFNRW ROUND DE" SPEED /s POSTED SPEED DE" EH(LE R Q-/0 PERCENT TRUCKS 2B T. 27N. RAE. W.M. / R=1 Of ggi i � S4ic o�g - ---- _ x 4705TN� /N Btu" momEFTRUpEU OMB t m 8 EWDLEFT RAB EARE ALINE (SR 991 N /'Ii SY Y 6 R00 7h00 MIT R-15 A:we r Awe NLO�dBS vw..r� omn STIONRINFEEI uTaF84[meM'� eo®n ml Fuw DESIGEfN7ED BEM WEN 1 T 1 1 1 1 CUM DATA vl ysa fa rl nf•/1 TNlmll NNIN sly AIR[ ilw7.+P ssae��• Uen ynu IMIN n SCJ ALLIANCE ON/XNER•XIXNNNNRNeNN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LR. T BEpK SU[NAEN - 1 - ^�cCL WSONH" Y FM 044WR; DATE_ OTT Q EDMONDS Pf" NOAKS OKCTCR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR Of Ott OF EWCtO$ Roglan NIIN NMHA(y LREs) EDMONDS HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY&REVITALZATIONPROJECTFI3CPDl "'- d 0 IL 0 N d 3 3 x c 0 a� r a 0 IL On 01 3 r C c� G 0 2 Q Packet Pg. 239 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. CURVE DATA nA su.al onu luaus rNNur tnwN s(q AIrt 11—aaAs• Imn . nasa Y 9Ea EQEOU 5= 3'T REM smE DID SWOU WICK EASING YAIOI fASTNL 1[W Y SAENW( Iim( NODICO EIRaDFD am K. Y Smxx Tw ' y ?Ep LUT 11" LUC r r IPaO TIMoc — A-LINE(SR 99) J r P=2a 1 N Y rn `.o EECAM 90EMALN T NEW I UA70i MUM Q DO � 1 ExE 9DEr+uc vupl E1anNt b8 Q DD 90OW1( vAlor EASING 20 ya . Oy�y� qYq DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE d1 0E9MUM A-w (SR W K FLWI"AL CUSS HNIDRAL MIUM gals ml rpm NM XFA. KLLNO OEM"m POSTM SFU MS 11 DES" 11 ACIE Na-M RERCENI TP"S n t NcuA. nuu avAn ,ati. ALL DMEW"S SHFMN N FEET LALMS OTHERri'ISE ecrron DESKMATED �� mmsaM� SCJ ALLIANCE mwra�r �ervler Ics Ir.o.., win umr.nu...w.. Af aSRWJ lfr-r5W I r +�—cw N07 FOR CONSTRUCTION 71' YQMM1o4 t � h I � x ~ ? W w $ O BEOM 2 YATM 41 ¢ � 1 yF f1� I CXW DATE'. - ON or EUMS IxRMIC NORxs ON m CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR M Ott OF E01M ROMAYS ■nn nRa6AD1 Lus) NrA>cM,. EDMONDS BCP-02 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY$ REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 2 u 26 Packet Pg. 240 9.2.a MJIE NFEET \ \ �CAMFEELL COMMERCIAL YEHICIES l NEM 7 Sd m R•1O N D — Y Ti MINGTON COAT FACTORY DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE OE" ONTMA A-LK 1799 w9E9E) WHOM OASS RM1F4 TWIEFOU ACCESS CONIRa mam ITT ROIAW DESIGN SPED E5 POSTED SEED 45 DESIGN VDXU 8-', PfRft11T MOTS. R wTm T. 27N. RAE. W.M. CURVE DATA YA ST�>41 — I Z 1M , IOILTM 9 T>♦ �m 'Haw 3 ,sl I f % I 1WI5 I m. I SS GOLDEN WEST MOTEL 7 \ 3\ whiw EbPK1 9 `. r - Gtl � TEW�N SEWER FRIENDLY \ a ALINE (SR99) _ 2 R-JD % R.IQD= w y _ Ha IFFI am Lox - R-20_ R.1O.O' xti W — EROTEF7 1IIWI SxNE _ 4 $k !+c N • _ j� _ _ �—�'— — — — — — — — 1� r s n Kv r sOil " Om) I ctnvFr�r I 7 WON SoEwix u w a EnMw IMG ACADEMY OF EIRS_----`� \ ---_K_ __- -- -__ -VACS t MUSIC AND DANCE BEGN SCEY15ix\ wTOT [915TR6 \ OW" OATE: OTYOF EDYM PUM1C 'Ms DKCTOR �. CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR IIE Off 6 EDAM RW hTS MNWN M"CK L ES) SCJ ALLIANCE T}lr19LILlY1W TIOMCIW Packet Pg. 241 1\ TACO TIME 1 `\ LEDO NAILSIPIZZA HUT n 1 VEYAY E. T 90ERAEM (TV) y m� c� m m A-LJNE (SR 99) 24,00 A�a '--`------------------- $ 8 ---------------- -------------- IT QO, auk EE RA,u L", \ \ \ \ ST. FRANCIS MOTEL \\ 1 \ 1 1 \ DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE A-LK DESIGN CIMM (SR M VAM E) FLWTCNAL M4$ MNOPAL *VW ACCESS CCNWM YA RCLLW RiRW omm SPEM RS PosED 4® AS 0E9OI 00CEE 0-40 HRFENT TFK= 2S Au DAEasaNs sm"RF FEET °rn0` UNILMOTFI DEswim t IFE O1fnlTo� T. 27N. RAE. W.M. BEEHIVE ESPRESSO CURVE DATA FA SMRYI ORY R.YAIS SRYdi rflYH S Fq A. I m. , S7FFOF ,T9N4 K71 inn 2A tlWY1 � r ��r E 3 rr y R-ap R.70' R•J 0' Tye _- r... HEW 6' SE{EMR DID i WEDAH ,yF p 25i00 12NT00 "A N 17'00'40' E 115E00 1' R-S0' _ + - E➢D OVAL LEFT ROB LANE NEW r9DEr, (M) n' _-------__-- ` \ h _�__--- NEW R�1 TRAVEL LODGE 1 SUBWAYITERIYAKI \\w' \\ \ 00 90ElWRJ WATCH EYSTMO \ \ L CNM DATE:_ city or EplOes KOK RDRRS DRECTOT CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR THE OTY CO EDMM RpWYAn MAY, TAeACA L ES) EDMONDS BCP-BN SCJ ALLIANCE HIGHWAY SIR 99 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY& REVITALIZATION PROJECT rovnv.Ta rrm.w,wri.oa.uern,.ww.rwrp.wa a 4 26 BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS Packet Pg. 242 9.2.a DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE om calm (9t SD MNIMI[) EUKIMM MSS PWWAL ARTENU ACCESS CONAWL I�Otwll w RMtW OEM SPEED a POSTED SPIED 45 DESM,N %Dw 0-40 PEKW 1R MS A T. 27N. RAE. W.M. 1-01 \ SAFEWAY a \ \ FASTING R NEA LSIDEWW M E% FAD lF%1 71MM tAllF RFEM Ijjl 11fa EAI[ � U 5� ��• O A-LINE(SR 99)— — R• 0 �� F ���� _ Q/� 177iDo ��� M DYDO'AM' E � _ LG B•�n _ _ _ _ _ 17M00 �� R+SO.0 _ _ — — _ 15' MEEWI � c/l N H h i� WN 4'1[DM _- Q y aS� 7.1104 STATION KEN so w0 NATCN EASIN . Wu,uar m,w �w ALLpMEH5gN5 SHOMINFEET SCJ ALLIANCE MESSCITEEMSE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION eu�nw ouvecgLy DESrAA7ED .k lbn NNfIfVp •Afllf YS� F..d �s.-..�, A �4 T Y 00"" DATE CITY or mmm PAIL MS IMIFCT@ CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FIR THE On OF EDMENOS RDADMAYS loPm ko&KK INS) ra.Ncu. EDMONDS BCP-05 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 5 " 2f Packet Pg. 243 9.2.a a Packet Pg. 244 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. 1 � A � \1 R-31 1 I \ �1 A — BEvI 914YMX DO SDC>rlll( ICN CPSMC xr R/N ^ 4 --- DID 4' WDM FNT IfrI Nfd I,vc _ IE;W IflT D1RX LWC Y a m A-LINE{SR j �' w 33100 ' .9 TJ1A01 k R 2TDU41 E w ? i R-2.D' WOO' z w w CIA urn Am LAZE BEaN f IE➢�.W _- U — — g y Sy T _— &s7iI A --•Ii•....•NW7STRITAIRTRT-------->—EESAAR SUNSET BUILDING \ POODLE PLACE DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE A -UK DEEM PERIL (91 RR YA RW RW**4 PA% PRNDPIL A=K AMSS CDITRQ R4 ROJK TDEWT om SPEm 45 POSTED 7UED 45 OESO TFAIPL W40 \ \ \ 1 \ 1 ALL DIMENSgNS SHOMMTNFEET SCJ ALLIANCE uwESSMEMSE ca.Iw L,wA..awv ca. DESIrMTED TRAILER LAIC TRAILER PARK COP" DATE PTY or WANDS Rmuc VMS DNECIOR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE IrER TK On or mum Ram ys EDMONDS BCP-07 HIGHWAY SR 99 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY R REVITALIZATION PROJECT Amur rnmri :l IRATInPd PI AMC T 26 Q Packet Pg. 245 9.2.a 0 m 9 a rAE.FEU DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE (SA 99 WAU[) RWTW E 0- s% PRMVu JRYMAE Aam OWTROI TOM W ROLM DE" SW {S rom 7m a OESM VDWX nB-a P"T TIM 2S T. 27N. RAE. W.M. KIM & KIM ABRA AUTO BODY & GLASS `, IETEGRRY AUTO SALES TCH E in ---------- r MAL, EHD 1 IEKW - �'� A -LINE (SR 99) R.»u rrm 1111 a i»roo _ R.Sa a.l R.50 a' BEGH LEFT PM tAW _ - I. TFfT 1uRx lME ---------------r------------ ----_-__-__-__---- T-r--___ ; R-/R T TRAILER LANE TRAILER PARK T � i EDMONDS SMOKE A GFT T _----- -_J i� SCJ ALLIANCE WHIRLY BALL \\ \ wRo )AX aTY or [»mm PWW OM WCTOR CRY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FUi TIE aw of Ea1aaS ROAORAYSTAG" Lws) a Packet Pg. 246 9.2.a T. 27N. R.AE. W.M. \ I I 1 9 M tl \ \ Y:IIFNiTiT \ V� \ V CHC COMMUNITY HEALTH 9 N� H17X SAYAlIt �� YFWI ED911NG \ R[1 R - -__-- - -- - -- Icy _RCS__ -���������r -�._-�� FSMpF.IYFYMT I .1-____-VL R Y 5� 6� END LEFT TOPR LAZE = LEQN IFST Twl LRIE l e A-LINE(SR 99) U 6 'ram InIW d.� 1{11� O' f R.5p,NIm I 1 ILNm x 2TOPIT' E �i N al J W BEA f KDIM DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE DEM CRITERIA A- K {Sq 99 "MILK) RAI SMK CLASS PRIIPJPAL ARTERIAL AIXESS CMTROL W ITPRAN Ram EESIYI SPEED 49 POM SPEED wSm wmf K AY-BO PERml RRIDES 29 }EEOx 9tt1uxR 1u101 ETOSIN6 HOUSE OF GUNS HASH CHIROPRACTIC r Ycnu 0lDY i ALL OIANSFI S omo SHWMINF�ET .SC'..J ALLIANCE UNLESS OTWJ?ME awLatRa AOIVIm DESIRLFTm loeA .rt.tvmrYZq.a:r mo dns�xw �i ioainiFu �+ im ue Ism R]LL.LLV<Pcar 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ANOTHER CASTLE VIDEO GAMES ww 1 1 1 I L1111C]R UA IE'. I aTr Or muuos RIeuc RORPs LMEnpI I CITY OF EDMONOS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FORM OTT OF EOMMS RO"ATS TIRIN ROMBACK LMS) EDMONDS BCP-09 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALVATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 9726 Q Packet Pg. 247 9.2.a 40� 0 C P M SGLENREf CHC COMMUNITY HEALTH ----------------- NEW R/R R EPD 1' RIDIAN H wR 50.0' �W 2 ti W HON LEFT Re( LANE J E40 IEfI IUPA' LAN y k L —R-------------• — —IEIIR/r PACIFIC PARK APARTMENT HOMES DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE DE" LTNIM O-� fso s9 RAKK) FINCIIMA OAGS PRIM PAL ARMM AOOm came. TERRAIN ROLLING OESIO1 wm 45 PDM VM OEM ITRFIE a N&a RFRCEMT TRIM 2% T. 27N. RAE. W.M. , , LES SCHWAB CJN MINIATURES & MORE 1611R ,, frAl I EASING R/0' )' — ENO LEFT iER'N L K BEGIN LEFT NRN LANE ¢ m R+WOG y R.wA• R_20' ALINE (SR 99j R=sou R �0 u�i IIRiOD _ — + Is& _ 2YOOi7' EE 4CGAN _ 1 _ y � MrrAAr m.Le uLt2a�nswHs SHOWN I9 FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED R.50.0 EEfRM LEFT ILYN LAZE U W m —AIM � IEDIAN - R1RL�TEIB.TI _ _ RE1P'r9R[1I�TF�vi" •,• ' ^ _ _ � _ _ - - - - - floSNG R iE'M OAMRAr - _ _ VIKINGS AUTO SALES $ $MOTORS SCJ ALLIANCE aoNnanEsaeonL:R� �•: E9fi lA-1�1. '; N�isa iioF.,� n��ow ��w NOT FOR CONSTRICTION OMA MTE:_ OTY CF EMIX MUC wms ORELTcR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR THE On OF EOLLGMOS RWORAYS MRM 110644fu LINES) EDMONDS BCP-10 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 10 26 Packet Pg. 248 9.2.a `1 ELAf NffEl \ \ T. 27N. RAE. W.M. V� EIY AI� \ WATCHuH EXIYSRI10� AOY SIDEVALK Q ERSIP C A tY EfscwAr (r v) PUBLIC STORAGE PR SEA AUTO NEW RpR- / _ KY R/Y EpiTXC R/W 71' m_ DO R' umm DID 1111 WIN ILK - BCON LEFT TURN LtNF "�- �• y w R-1.0' A -LINE (SR 991 R- y IS" ISrtr 0000 N 2rm4r E - J '� RI rPPLR R-20' R-MV aw x F w f HEW (AT IIRRV LANE _ END LEFT IUEI WR Y:OI �' YEIEM - R•500" H AT ( _ _ - _ _ - _ _ Y Y ILI IrP .... 11 F jl'- - _ - 7 - EYSTFY: R -----.. ---------------------- 1 , BRENTWOOD PLAZA 1 MILLY AUTO PARTS I o 1 1 YAT71 FIPSINt \ I 1 I 1 \ I I \ I 1 I I I 1 I f I I l I f \ I 1 I � 1 DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE Of90N WILIER A -LINE [41 99 YANRE) FI KfXNAL DA% PFIWPAL ARM" ACCESS Cwrga Ya DESGN SPEED 45 POSlEO 5°IFD RS DEW. A.CLE 0-40 PERDENI IRuw 7% ,�••• 01pj uLowEPsla+s SH" RI FEET •"°••," ".'� unEEssonlQrmse gEgGluT� \ `EEM SR \ PAO E i SCJ ALLIANCE eanRL�rwPswPwlew NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION COMM DATE_ OTT OF IDNCNM PUOUC YOPaS DKC'C' CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOP THE OTT CF MINIMS ROLDw15 MRN RF"" LKS) EDMONDS BCP.11 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY It REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATIONPLANS 11 Packet Pg. 249 9.2.a 127N. RAE. W.M. , , , , , , , , , swaxFaT 1 r COUNTRYFARMS SOCN4M � •',.a L r 9ATGM lxi K �f MORRep —_— ------------------ �------------"VUw _/ d� Ipm wauat 4L L^PL — _ _ oF'T I T Lrw r onsrxc R `� 4 QS _ DO t MINI R.so.a ALINE (SR 99� R.sod � y' x 2TW9T E 1W.W IG3,00 G,S (y P-50.0' T£ON IEET IT" LANE - DD IETT 7m LAME Y H o rT RE1ERAr TP --- -- Y i--------��`«� NFN ORIYL'MT ------7------ E105x9CR IT, 1 MILLERS RENT ALL ` ,+ MILLERS RENTTLL l , , , , DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE , NON INTERSTATEK" arm ` (SM 99 N.MODLI ` ILMCD11Mµ aA% PRlGPN. MTEDIII TFRRMN RC" DESGN 9 W �5 m1w SIM :5 DESIGN MCI 18-10 R MEMT TIIID(9 2S ILL [MNENSgT6 � 40AWFEET SC.J ALLIANCE u lssonwr4m eaxrarw �otMers DEU MATED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EMEI mErr9c� YA101 EbSTNG`` an 7 CF [IlY EIYnOS mIIC MdM' D �S[i0R CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (F(R TIIE arc OF QM11D5 NAM"' xTRH M WACK LINES) EDMONDS kCp.�12 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY 6 REVITALIZATION PROJECT Q Packet Pg. 250 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. , --�� o a N X E!li1xG RRRUNS GREAT `` +� ` AUTO SALES +\ B00 HAN PLAZA rEra GILSON DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE Ct= abitlEA AtiJE 1st » MIA.! K) INIORaK a!ESS PMWAL AM& ACQSS CMVM 1EUMN N Ra1NC OES" 9w 45 POSTED SPEED 45 DE" MEWLE PEREaII "$ 16-40 $ Ns r y + MAT \ NEW Y SIXrux (lw) \ NE11 pIIYFYIAT fID ILFf NRN LANE o _ �m 155.00 A -LINE ISR 99) i6e.w�i x trw•ar [ ,S�+oo I _ DEM i EEDim ua J J' _ _�@5.8�1f _ -r „ ` 4.RFY___________________ 1 l 76STATION GRACE CHURCH ` \\+ +++ r MATTHENI + ROBERT SALON BEa1 voEMALN + + Iu1Lx ExK1NL � \ � 1 + Y � `+ caxa,R; WAIF an a EDMWS PIW raxS WCUR ' CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (roA DE aTT OF CDEaas koADmys Ulm TLMACN ENES) ALL aMENSONS SNOMINFEET ��� SCJ ALLIANCE EDMONDS HIGHWAY SR99 BCPA3 1"XM OTHERWISE DESNTIUED M.ya.,.r NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY &REVITALIZATION PROJECT .. .. .. - 13 26 BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS Packet Pg. 251 9.2.a DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE A_LK INSC. c1Ixu ISR ft MARK) rLWIMK CLASS PR114MAL ARTDM AEOESS OONIROL R4 DEM vo POSIiO SIM 4s 45 DEM *IME 0-/D lmw mos . T. 27N. RAE. W.M. I � \ PUBLIC STORAGE -670m E asrNG IIEW T SIX-V (i191 k Farm R/W \ � R-10' P-60' �BEGIN IETf lUM LV[ R-50o R-500' nD4DD INESR99 5 Kqµ _ _ _ _ _ ( - _ 17+100 _ _ N 2Y00- E _ I7Hm _ _ K y S 4 � E.sTw R1, T I kf DRPE— (-b I RE7 Y sDER4R (M) T ` / r / r END SOEWW 1 eEtrl mural J u,,7�Eessnl6 \y VAIM EASTW16 r � � u 111 ----ORS vwrw. e+so� SHOM IN FEE7 uW.ESS OTHERWISE ➢EWMTED i SCJ ALLIANCE aorrRlatR4wRonno .I �> rio rsiisoi .w.�lawl BIGFOOT JAVA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CU". DAZE._ Oir or Moms Kvm WOR[5 0F4CTOA CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR K 0" OF EOWOIOS ROAMYS EDMONDS BCP-14 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 14 26 Packet Pg. 252 9.2.a 9 � a 8U4E NFFEl ! � DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE DE" CpiEPBA A-UNE {SR 99 RANN) FIRICRMk QAZ FNMfYA AR"k ACCESS CONTROL TEPRNN w NOLL" EESO sim 45 F05RD SW 45 DEW w3w 'B-AD PONERI Ras 2% T. 27N. RAE. W.M. END SID \ GTT Wltll I \\\ WEST COASTAUTO WORKS , R.soo ALINE(SR 99 - C BEGIN LOT RRd LANE - flit lE7i TRd x�PLANTV wc.um .n,F —Qs ALl.OlE18ElN5 BnonNBEFEE SCJ ALLIANCE L1MMOT ERWISE AxAraNMr .. .., _ M1100S® � ioo O'Rtl — 9 7R11N5.Y f lIG JSI.I501 OWM M L an OF EMI MS MW wms ORCC TOR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE CFOs R[ On OF ED MS ROA %V eRM RaeAQ wds) EDMONDS BCP-15 HIGHWAY SR 99 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 15 26 Packet Pg. 253 9.2.a A YhE.R'EET T. 27N. RAE. W.M. II 1 1 1 1 1 E AEON SIDE1Ullt 1 6 Ta =TIG , — — NERO'S AUTO BROKERS — — — — — — 1 DOUGS \\ ,` I I, Al 7 /' Nm 7 S mvkx (T») TIaRERA1 \ T , R OEND Litt TURN VMC EEGN IEFT TUN LNE A -LINE (SR 99) I, l � 176400 O/] F.lQ � I79EW ^x �` W. N 27.. I' E 18I400 .4r. Rn E47 A` T rR.d . -�� R-ID 0 ymm 4' 1[DIAR _ —. EECN i YEDNR - � 11' FASINON-----Jptr .r...•�. meL- JiCI[YY1 _ _------------ �}� 1------------------_--_------------- -- T `\ NFV MM DI 1 III M99 DI A]A NL1 RM COLLISION CLINIC \ 1 To, EXISTING \ DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE A ff9Lnl CRIIEPoA 1 4Aw (91 93 RI(] IIXTIONu MSS M OPAL ARMmk \ `, AMSS MI11RQ IFARAN N ROLPIC ` \ DES%N SPEED 4 ` P%t[D sw DEWN \UE¢E 45 RE-40 �- `r POMT THUDS u(onEMsloMs vulr my amc� &H MNFEET llNLESSOTNERYNSE Oi51"TED SCJ ALLIANCE 00" DAIL OffOF WHOM "OM VOWS DWCIOR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR RE OTY OF 04M ROIDRAr4 ■Dill ROMADI IDES) EDMONDS BCP-16 HIGHWAY SR 99 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 16 26 Packet Pg. 254 T. 27N. RAE. W.M. r MFM `\ DOUG'SLYNNWOOOMAZDA WW \ \ , , , DOUG'S LYNNWOOD MAZDA �R NPR— - - --------------�---------- -------- �—�'—�— -- N[w r gXwuH (imI \ r T7D \ w oPulw.r (r 1 r tp �Gm IEFi TOfwW LANE M R' TMVN g eD f4j F 41 - A=50.11 R=soT P. A-JNE SR 991 off � m [A $; w �• tW r I&1W ,5' YFDwI N 7TarAr [ 1p6E0p TS' AE➢TW _ T F $, w r A..W s1PFR R-107 yA rn J = R.50.0 B[OR LEFT 0.AM IHIE DU ILTf TURNUKP•2G R•10.D' ___________ J w U TATU , WDRIYFwAYS7YP -r( Sra��- Y --T-- wTxma i .L ------ --�--� -- DESIGN DATA FOR NUS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE DESIGN MVIA (SR B-UK 99 YAYAITEI FII,CTIGTTAL OASS PNKPAL WMAL 4emss CMMOL N1 Tmw Dt" sPEm RMfAG IS POSTED TIED w5 Dt9M Wi1YCTE "-A0. POWNT TRM 2% I,y TRAVELLER'S INN �\ r•[w w y \ t W N , `W\ �. \W\ HARBOR FREIGHT \ y , y \, AW \ ` TXwIQ1T DATE_ , on OF EDIvtr85 RA91C roTrs orQciaR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR M On OF DUMB ROAD— rTm M MACK LKS) w�A. 05NA ALL DWENSM EDMONDS BCP-17 w, fiA SHOYMNIEET SCJ ALLIANCE HIGUWAYSR99 UNLESS OT ERME ea.raL,r...oMu. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT UESIauTED L.m tr,W.,BIa �}eFxHv NYr-3�15i-15W BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 17 26 Packet Pg. 255 9.2.a LYNNWOOD HONDA (R R7V S A — rn w g; w m N 00 N PYDP'IY E IBBINQ - w _______________________ _�� _ _ -_ _ ' SEC. LEFT no IN[ — WSm R r IEII diLLAT f Y IEIY 7' %Ew4M 1m _ DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE A -tot CE9W (MTMA f5R 99 RBI nmcnm L AA55 PWWAL ARTOK AMSS C 11L Ri iEPlIAM Rolm POSTED SHED u Teams AETRPE 0-10 PEAP7n mas a AU DILMCM vaA ww �he� SNOm RE FEEF TRLE59 OTHUMSE PESKNATEO T. 27N. RAE. W.M. FIO 9LTT41 \ NA En5t" li SHELL NETA J A -LINE (SR 99) g %, OP L911(10 �� TKO S _ o DO LEFT MW LANE o _ Q ■ RT way T OLYMPIC SPINE AND SPORT 1 @OILING PDINT 1 " 1 I /ac sa.x9c L YA7f11 oosTRTc 1 L 1 I I-' I I SCJ ALLIANCE eorraTTLNr�oMe�s NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - r,.wu.am. \ \A\ \ CONPR ono CITYElRLONRs TY D< TiRK MdR4 AQGTOR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR THE 07Y OF E9RM RDWILI6 NRM TUANRAOT LIES) EDMONDS SCP•18 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT DASICCONFIGURATION PLANS 7e 25 Packet Pg. 256 9.2.a DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE OE9 fA1 CPoIEBA -LK ISl A WARM) ACCESS DMWA V4 WAN ROum DE901 SPM POSTED SPEED w 45 DE" 'DK%f 0-40 PERCEN1 TRUM 3 T. 27N. RAE. W.M. ------------------------------------- \ I 1 A 1 \ \1 I Y � \ A \ A [lo sotrFRR aal sixvwei DICK'SDRNEdN 7-- pL— PATCH FJ05DFG STARBUCKS 71 -------------- = I Ai'W r 9D[1WR (Tw) . mrcrrAr m — — — 000 —N —1twi_ — ---- Ero ulr ua, EAr( eEw iul M71 IAAE �o <//j •� _ --------- A-LINE(SR99) -a`re' N4 IOHOD x 2rw4r E m.OD Q y� KOH oo- 4 1FDR —__�{• r--_ VMAY _ —�__ r \ piIYQAY ER15 FFG R \ � � — — — — — REO DNAGON CASINO \\ MEDICAL SUPPLY � \\ r , \ 1 � � S \ \ 7 \ \ K \ O \ Y l � uEDivEH5gH5 SHvnwwFEE � SCJ ALLIANCE uaESS OTHUMSE DE9E:+IATED arA wq YAFTLL.r.frwroVYla 10:.iFiliuu NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - .wP ,,,,�« P:lq nl.Awr ONDA DATE — Oil OF MLOtMS POMIC V MIS awooR CITY OF EDMOND$ GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR ME DF OF EDUM ROAD1A wTM D1DRaim EVES) EDMONDS BCP.19 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 14 26 Packet Pg. 257 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. `, 55 1 , 5 uxc NFmF I 55 I I 5l DICKS DRIVE-IN 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EZ SOPaxx EEOp 9D[WtN ` YAiOi [A571K. YARX ETISgIG 5 tx R/x SWEDISH RADIAL IMAGING CENTER SWEOISH MEDICAL CENTER — — \ IEl Rh — -----_ -----'-------------------------- _ 7 _90_ Ixx CPoaCrn. ;'m,) - _ fxisIFID R/R n a ALINE (SR 99) = m R.IaD'- - t99190 - x 2Ym'{Y E MOWO _ 55. IFDunI 201apD_ _ _ 907a00 � w N 5 y H r 2 w Al R.9R0' _ R.SO.O• U W U W { { 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE DESOO MTEFM R-UK {9 99 WAKE nP O M CLk% PR"AL ARTERIAL ACCESS CC«ma w NWM ROLLWG DEStrI %M {S POSTED SPEED {s K" 50RCiE 1B-40 PO MT 1RUCRS M \ I I I \\ I I I I I I I I I \ I I I \ i 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I l I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 CW* DAT CITY OF EDUM PLWC WPM WCIOP CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (TOR THE 0" OF ENOPM ROAUMTS WOIN TA*ACK U'ES) AUERt1FWAK + EDMONDS BCP-20 SXOIYNINFEET SCJ ALLIANCE HIGHWAY SIR 99 UKESSaTl PM ea.IEa <,w..nxMe.. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT DESMATm .� vx�ar.sa.�rf•_> •. BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 2° 26 Packet Pg. 258 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. SWEDISHMEDICAL CENTER , 1—,—I—� `\ L1A mEruuc o x m \ ' uATal EySTNG SrA1EnFEET \ \ l \ \ O� \ _ �?'�' Q f Q 2 Ib A' r J�! N R.106 R-50D' — A-LINEISR991 N�y� i = 9a.ao zo. uzy, Eft ? y DID LEFT TAN LAW P 20 R.SDWMN IErI TURN LANE -. DOD LEFT R" WE 6, � �i V bb DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE l[SR71 (RIIaRA A-IME (SR 99 MANX) FIKDAWy 0,M PMMPAL AMA ACRA CONTROL TUIMN RA KUM DESCH spEID K POSTED MO 45 DE%h AEIRCLE MI -AD KKEn' 1RUM A ------_—__-- WP R VACANT i JEFFS AUTO SUPPLY _ I r r _ r _ — — 1 i LYNNiWOOD AUTO CENTER 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I � I i w.,.0 nail ALL DORWANS S1.11IEET SCJ ALLIANCE UNLESS OTKR MSE DGS15MTE0 . Sao �i�� au ms.a � Awuz�wl suiunia.raAl N07 FOR CONSTRUCTION \ EEO N ENAIR \ Wlal EASING Cp1aRl: DATE arf or [OVOIDS PUBIC'o" auc"R CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (rot RE ah OF UWQNDS PRAOWA6 MTNN UMAC( LNES) EDMONDS BCP.21 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 21 2E Packet Pg. 259 9.2.a 0 A tl 9GtENf@� 1 r D*W (� IIIAi(H E1�IP10 sA DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE IS9 AAK W NSUq FUICjWA MUSS PigpN. NRRAN A= OWWA YI ARRNN Roum DE" SM Pom SPmD U u DES" tFHaf 0-40 MIC NI 1PU S Li T. 27N. RAE. W.M. VALUE VILLAGE COMMUNITY DONATION CENTER FRrrsmrxlrnl ------ r rump QOflu Lm DFA; LVN eta+ LM P)A LAVE — �Q A -LINE SR99 N O N.av u N wn oesucPr----------- ------ ACURA OF LYNNWOOD lei ISM mwmx F" DETM ALL DPENSi0N5 � s4vre wcEEr SCJ ALLIANCE ,� '.'F. UNLESSOTNEPoMSE oa.eK.._nxn DESIGUTEO x�owF xww mr MCDONAIW k�;� LEFt UM LAW P.5a0' R-2G `A I-11 �+ w BEGF i NED.w cN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a" or EDNaeOS PAK %M5 watoN CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR ME 01M 6 EMWS KAM MDR! PWBAa LKS) EDMONDS SCP•22 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY 6 REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLM$ 22 26 Packet Pg. 260 9.2.a T. 27N. RAE. W.M. t , \ \ 9U.IEIRPD'.1 , 1 t ` \ \ \\ \ \ tt3 r " \ � TEXACO � PARKING GARAGE \t 11EIIR► rEll'R�- \ \ ---- - EIPstm VV TKD 7 sCCTRCR (TTr1 RE7Y DCtrYEMr I 1 \ T ww wwmy ( ) — A -LINE (SR 99) w R.SD6 x:rDD'Ar E 214OD s' rnW ns aD7440 u'~ w -2---�- -1-----1---- -----------�-- IDO z w z w _ ____________ now w ME ----- __-__ --- _�----- 9.EI111-----—��----.. E1R51RID RfP - t 1(f R/V t \ CAR MAX , ACURA OF LYNNW00D , \ DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE \ s\ NON INTERSTATE �t tsR O[4T1T CwgWA 6-Lg \ 1 RWrft L CLASS PMCIPAL ARUAL \ \, ACOM CONTROL w aOR ff ED. PU9C voin 0omctaR DEESI SPEED Ra `"R CITY OF EDMONDS POSTED 9w RS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE DESPT t9RaE �_a P[RCI]IT TRUCAs 22 (FOR M OR a EMOND5 RADI An ■M "MAU Tiffs) .. „� W.. "` AEL[R/fNSaEs sNavxwEs r lRA c53 oT¢EtWISE _w SCJ ALLIANCE caTaTtiww�rlTls 10i.R%nRw �5!' FCT.T i5]TTOP NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDMONDS HIGHWAY SR99 GATEWAY 8 REVITAL17ATIDN PROJECT BCP•23 23 26 .'ra I.aale.F BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS Q Packet Pg. 261 9.2.a e ID p §fjlFNfEEr RIDER CONSTRUCTION NEW �UUCL Q m in NGwo N 27*W.Y E Olt! w f^ Z W s 05 — ffCu LEF1 NRM LANE V W � W DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NON INTERSTATE DE" CNIEMA tSR A -UK FU cmw Q SS MWX ARUO ROL ACQSS CONH YA RULLNG. MAIN DES" SIRED Ms FOSLED SIM MS oESNAI %00M MB-AD KRCENI 7R acS 2% CAR MAX H wxu+ a,en ALLCIMENS06 ru�rA"u MOWN IN FEES UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED T. 27N. RAE. W.M. UNDER CONSTRUCTION W� \ IEf Y AGENALA (IYPL E(aW[NI' ( I —. — OD f IEoM m _ R.SD' N K 710M0G A{INE(SR 9. 9) � �,� END LErT 74% LANE Q Sv j 4 IF, I , ENSTW R If" Y 50E11NK {rmJ CAR MAX FMISOff11NJ NATC11 ER1xG CDNOIR. DAZE' aEY Or OWM N1dIC "Ims 7 TOR CITY OF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE Ira DE Orr a ED04DS ROADNAMS NDNN RMWAN LIES) EDMONDS BCP.Y4 SCJ ALLIANCE HIGHWAY SR99 EOARLALIN�A1oMVN:O NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY& REVITALIZATION PROJECT 24 26 BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS Packet Pg. 262 9.2.a DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE DE" OMM (sl W RAIMM) FONCROm O AM MWAL ARMW CCESS ACONTROL tEl" wM ROLLMD Mick gm AS POSTED'3EE0 45 a9CN IN"' B-/0 PEKENT TRUM 2% T. 27N. RAE. W.M. + t 1, t 1 \ 1 + ` BElil 9ElA1tY. t1tG t, MAtOI ORSTNG tC" \ t 1 + m + HARVEY'STAVERN Ai \ `s Ts�` JACK IN THE BOX Kw T SGE.W ITR) Kw IXmEMAY t t w AT T fM LUT TURN LUC KG N L6t TOM EAK pp,, --____..____ � m A -ONE (SR 99) K N 27'DO4r E w � w KI M M' 1tmo -• Q ATM-MEAJ�M�TER --- Ew _w l u7r_..CAR WASH UNKNI BANK ENTERPRISE ALL DlViSM &i WrN N FEET UMLESSOTIERTMSE DESiGNATEC � t VEIN 5+ wATa ENSTW ENstND + it a SCJ ALLIANCE CORYAitTIMNNOIYbRI NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ,oxu Floc ti➢Lts if Yn%I1Sc0 uw�uiv �. CO AL DATE, OTt Of E.M RBX WWS ONRECTOR CITYOF EDMONDS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE (FOR Tr( CITY Or EDWGWS ROA MK N1Yw! R/IRRAp( LRw5) EDMONDS BCP•25 HIGHWAY SR 99 GATEWAY& REVITALIZATION PROJECT BASIC CONFIGURATION PLANS 25 26 Packet Pg. 263 9.2.a DESIGN DATA FOR NHS ROUTE NONINTERSTATE TWSTO1 TX TMA (sn s-LK » YpRs[l RKNONAL MSS WPAL ARTOW ACCESS CONVDL W TMAM DESO SW ROCMC as POW To a PO m iP1m n MAGIC TOYOTA SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD wwR/N _ NEN ORkIENAY I I — _ — _ — _ h v> �— CID C U MAN ev N � _ 6 - ~ F___________________ w--------- � m reloo A -LINE �SR 99) m+ao Y rrao'er r rm.a rewm n9.sR w R.I l z S R.IQO S � d 141 y AEW T $IIAIA lIR � � W iYSflID SECRET GARDEN ALL 01061"$ 1 M"riFm SCJ AcLUANCE UNLESSOTHOWASE earatwaAm DESAATED rx,vn ro.s.,e. �,F,a m, era � o mTinai. �i nisi �sov� rayiouw co. XCR'E MOTORS 01 OF EDMMD5 REM WORK CM[CR1R CITY OF EDMONOS GEOMETRIC CONCURRENCE IrOR TK OTY Or MODS ROADNAyS YTTWI Posso UNIs) EDMONDS BCP•26 HIGHWAY SR 99 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY & REVITALIZATION PROJECT OAQI[` rrWVj1`_I 10ATI11Y 01 AUt 26 26 Packet Pg. 264 9.2.a Interim Improvements U Between 224t"and 220th Highest crash history ♦ Highest volumes Build for future improvements, stripe to fit current tie-ins SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 CL N CU d 3 a� CU 0 0 M rL 0 M L CL 0) _ Packet Pg. 265 9.2.a P-E-111 1 .y ti r h� Hii SPINE MV EPORT .Q. * �4 T , 1 5 , FASELYFUN (fi1rEA v•wwav wens 0.iA pIMENE110H5 � SH M4tlINFEET SCJ ALLIANCE UNLESS GTHEAYASE cpyyL.�w P�s.� eu®er aeweAum P "MNATEP mc2e,ww. I wBY MM1mn.wh¢� u � .s�.HS9 �F��0351 i509rsx EOMONOS HIGHWAY SR A NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GATEWAY B REVITALIZATION PROJECT INTERIM PLAN m 0 a c 0 N d t4 3 m r 3 2 0 Q 0 (Q In a C) 0) 2 d t :i r a Packet Pg. 266 9.2.a Project Costs ($M) 1 2441" to 2381"Streets SW $19.4 $2.3 $8.3 $30.0 2 2381" to 2341" Streets SW $9.7 $1.3 $4.8 $15.8 3 234t" to 228t"Streets SW $17.3 $2.3 $6.5 $26.0 4 2281" to 2241"Streets SW $12.2 $1.7 $5.3 $19.3 5 224t" to 220t"Streets SW $13.3 $2.8 $8.9 $25.0 6 220t" to 216t"Streets SW $13.0 $1.7 $7.8 $22.5 7 2161" to 2121" Streets SW $21.8 $2.8 $9.6 $34.2 TOTAL COSTS $106.7 $14.9 $51.2 $172.8 SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 r- N Cu d R 3 x 0 r m rL 0 R a x r Cu a Packet Pg. 267 9.2.a Public Outreach Process Stakeholder Meetings Public Meetings • Council/Committee Meetings Scoped Meetings Jan 16 — Stakeholder Meeting . Jan 23 — Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Meeting ♦ Feb 20 — City Council Meeting Mar 7 — Public Open House Mar 20 — City Council Meeting Sep XX — Stakeholder Meeting Oct 11 & 16-4 Property Owner Meetings SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 0 N CU d 3 0 0 M rL 0 M 0 0 L Packet Pg. 268 9.2.a Funding ♦ Secured Funding Connecting Washington/CWA • $0.5M/1M remaining • $9M available in 2021 biennium ♦ Submitted Grants STP - $2.5M (April 2018) — not selected HSIP - $2M (April 2018) — not selected SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 Packet Pg. 269 9.2.a Next Steps 0 Finish Funding Strategy Apply for Grants Interim Improvements Full Improvements Return to Council for Updates SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 w m 0 L r- N CU d 3 a� r cu 0 0 0 M rL 0 L _ E c,> Packet Pg. 270 Packet Pg. 271 9.2.a Crash History ♦ 8.61 crashes per million miles traveled Table 1. Crash Severity Level (2014-2017) Description 2014 (Oct -Dec) (crashes) 2015 (crashes) 2026 (crashes) 2017 Total (Jan -Sept) (crashes) (crashes) Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 Serious Injury 0 4 5 2 11 Evident Injury 5 23 16 15 59 Possible Injury 22 86 78 53 239 Property -Damage -Only 42 150 142 102 436 Unknown 0 1 1 0 2 Total 69 264 242 1 172 747 SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 Table 2. Type of Crash (2014-2017) Description Fatal/Serious Fatal/All Tot,, (crashes) Injury (crash (crashes) Rear End 0 114 14 25- Sideswipe 0 96 Enter at Angle 1 45 12-d From Opposite Direction 1 87 17� (One left turn -One straight) Involving 5 24 25 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Other 4 25 73 Total 11 309 74; Table 3. Uncontrolled Intersection Crashes by Location (2014-2017) Location Rear -End Crashes From Opposite Direction (One left turn -One straight) Crashes Total Crash( Between 244' St & 238' St 8 6 43 38 Between 238th St & 2281h St 15 120 Between 2281h St & 2241h St 20 7 47 Between 2241h St & 2201h St 25 78 132 Between 220' St & 216th St 16 24 60 Between 216' St & 21211 St 23 10 45 Total 107 168 442 a IIIIIIIII� Packet Pg. 272 9.2.a Crash Diagram Legend ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY REAR END - NON INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NJURY SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT Packet Pg. 273 9.2.a ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND Crash Diaaram — 2441h• • REAR FND -INJURY REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE -- INJURY • SIDE SWIPE -NON INJURY and SR 104 PEDESTRIAN HIT SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJL 'o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIF o ON 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT N a� LL - _ 3 aD L r � 1 �� rn 0 CL 0 R I_ c.i 44 Q Packet Pg. 274 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2361h SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - INJURY SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJUR 'o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRE( a d ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRE( .o d o OTHER - SEE CALLOUT N a� LL 3 aD r rn o� 3 x Packet Pg. 275 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2361h to 232nd SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END — INJURY • REAR END — NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE — INJURY A SIDE SWIPE — NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT SRO * ENTER AT ANGLE — INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE — NON INJI 2 ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a` ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR c ON a OTHER — SEE CALLOUT N �l a� 3 CIA I O N r R fw xx U� O i d L a rn �c rn Packet Pg. 276 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 232nd to 228th SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE -- INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJL •o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a` ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR c ON a OTHER — SEE CALLOUT N L ♦. Cn Cn 3 x liSC AtLLIA Packet Pg. 277 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2281h to 224th SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJI •o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR It ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR c ON a OTHER — SEE CALLOUT N as 3 m r M 0 rn as 3 x c 0 a� r M L ♦1 Cn Cn 3 x m E 0 M 48 .r Q Packet Pg. 278 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2241h to 220th SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR FND - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE -- INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJL o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a` ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR c ON 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT N m c� 3 m r M 0 rn as 3 x c 0 a� r M a� a __ :3 r � y L ♦. M M 3 x Packet Pg. 279 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2201h SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR FND - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE -- INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJL o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a` ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIF c ON o OTHER - SEE CALLOUT N Packet Pg. 280 9.2.a Crash Diagram —2161n SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJUR' o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRE( It J ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRE( o J a OTHER - SEE CALLOUT N m 3 aD r o� 3 x c 0 a� r a � M � g � 0 .2 R r- y m L x I_ 51 Q Packet Pg. 281 9.2.a Crash Diagram — 2121h SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 L1 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • REAR END - NON INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJI o ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR a` ON ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIR c ON a OTHER — SEE CALLOUT N Y () a) L a. M 3 x ll SC.1 ZLIA Packet Pg. 282 9.2.a EDMONDS STATE ROUTE 99 CORRIDOR URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS GOALS The goal of the Edmonds SR-99 Corridor Urban Design Concepts is to roughly illustrate ideas for corridor revitalization. Urban revitalization is aimed at creating a safer, more pedestrian friendly corridor. Elements such as consistent lighting, planted sidewalk buffers, new wayfinding and gateway signs will help mitigate safety concerns and build a cohesive corridor identity. These elements are also intended to reduce the overall scale of the corridor, making it friendlier and more comfortable to walk, shop or wait for public transit. CONTENTS Essential Design Elements - Corridor Gateway Sign Options Street Lighting and Permanent Metal Banners Optional Design Elements - District Gateways - Sidewalk Details - Wayfinding Signs SCJ ALLIANCE � CONSULTING SERVICES Packet Pg. 283 9.2.a ESSENTIAL: CORRIDOR GATEWAY Internally lit posts? Corten or powder -coated steel? Textured concrete base? Five corners sculpture Edmonds, WA Gateway sign examp4 Daly City, CA Stainless steel with painted or cut -steel lettering? 'LCCME4 to �DMONDS Concrete, steel and/or textured plaster posts? Existing wayfinding signs Edmonds, WA Corten with cut -steel lettering? Concrete or steel, possible Textured concrete or plaster? lighting element? CONCEPT IDEAS Conceptual entry sign sketches take cues from the visual language of new Edmonds wayfinding signs and public art elements. Using the subtle wave pattern shown in the wayfinding package, three alternative gateway sign concepts use the emerging visual language of "New Edmonds"to mark the entry into the SR-99 Edmonds corridor. Gateway signs could be located on the northeast corner of Ballinger Way and SR-99 and the southwest corner of 212th Street and SR-99. Packet Pg. 284 9.2.a ESSENTIAL: LIGHTING AND BANNERS Colored fixtures? Powder -coated light poles (with cut -steel banners?) rnrtwnr Possible cut -steel banners with district emblems? b w New pedestrian lighting to be ' G insta#led?ram Example of cut -steel banners by local artist Alessandra Panieri Spider Banner Othello Park, Seattle, WA Koi Fish Banner Rainier Court, Seattle, WA Colored fixtures? �e Powder --coated light poles (with cut -steel banners?) Possible cut -steel banners s with district emblems? P Existing pedest Flighting tobe; retained? 1 i' Bamboo Panel Terrace Apartments, Seattle, WA CONCEPT IDEAS Colored fixtures? Powder -coated light poles (with cut -steel banners?) HEALTH e Possible cut -steel banners 0 with district emblems? New pedestrian lighting to be t r installed? Z District color -coded light fixtures help reinforce the presence of distinct districts within the corridor. Powder - coated cut -steel banners offer a playful, durable alternative to vinyl for further establishing a sense of place within each district. Pedestrian lighting implemented consistently throughout the corridor would improve safety and continuity between districts. Cut -steel banners could be cut into consistent decorative patterns that align with district identities and/or themes. Packet Pg. 285 9.2.a OPTIONAL: DISTRICT GATEWAYS OPTION A: Pillar LED tight poles Kenmore, WA OPTION B: Obelisk Decorative LED light poles South Omaha, NE Decorative LED light pale bench South Omaha, NE Materials for district gateways would be the same or similar to the entry gateways, using brushed or powder -coated steel or aluminum, LED lighting and concrete.The form of the district gateways could be one or a combination of the following options, District emblems could adorn the exterior of LED lit elements to create consistent patterns similar to the reference images shown below. OPTION C: Rotunda .0dou -"I, CONCEPT IDEAS District specific place markers could be used at the boundary of each district along the corridor to provide visual interest, lighting and to mark entry into a unique area within the corridor. Emblems of each district could be determined through input from the local community in order to accurately represent the overall identity of each district. These place markers could provide fun, human - scale elements and strengthen the identity of each district and the corridor as a whole. Packet Pg. 286 9.2.a OPTIONAL: SIDEWALK DETAILS AND WAYFINDING CONCEPT IDEAS SIDEWALK DETAILS Sidewalks through the corridor create long expanses of monotonous concrete. Using a change in paving texture can help reduce the scale of the corridor and create a "finer grain" urban experience. The Aurora Corridor Project used square pavers to create an appealing and sturdy sidewalk surface that breaks up long stretches of pavement and doubles as pervious paving to meet the City's stormwater mitigation goals forthe corridor. Implementing pervious paving on this scale could help mitigate the expansive feeling of the Edmonds corridor and be utilized for stormwater mitigation. The precedent set by the Aurora Corridor Project also provides the potential for cost and maintenance comparisons. Pervious paverner:t Shoreline, WA CONCEPT IDEAS WAYFINDING SIGNS Using the existing wayfinding sign format and aesthetic to implement wayfinding signs for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor could help connect the corridor to surrounding areas and make exploration of Edmonds more accessible. st 236th st — - .�T — —212th st 216th st POTENTIAL SIGN LOCATION Lake Ballinger Way N Packet Pg. 287 9.2.a Related Projects ♦ Edmonds/Lynnwood ♦ 212th Street SW Arterial Improvements ♦ 216th Street SW Channelization Adjustments to Remove Split Phase Signal Timing ♦ Snohomish County None ♦ Mountlake Terrace 220th Street SW — WB Right -turn Lane ♦ WSDOT Coordinate with SR 99 Paving Cycles ♦ Community Transit ♦ 216th Street SW — Strengthen Connections to Swedish Hospital ♦ Feasibility Study — Swift Blue Line Extension to 185th Street and to Link Station SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 1/17/2019 58 Packet Pg. 288