Loading...
2014.08.26 CC Agenda Packet         AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2014         6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(15 Minutes)Convene in Executive Session regarding Collective Bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a).   2.(15 Minutes)Interview applicant for appointment to the Edmonds Sister Cities Commission   REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 2014     7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER/ FLAG SALUTE   3.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of the Agenda   5.(5 Minutes)Approval of the Consent Agenda   A.AM-7080 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2014.   B.AM-7085 Approval of claim checks #210131 through #210234 dated August 21, 2014 for $911,302.63. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61145 through #61160 and #61166 for $478,462.20, benefit checks #61161 through #61165 for $10,005.57 and wire payments for $358,125.50 for the period of August 1, 2014 through August 15, 2014.   C.AM-7081 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Karla L. Therriault (amount undetermined) and Mark and Carolyn Blackbourn ($9,462.31).         D.AM-7082 Confirmation of appointment of Michele Fellows to the Edmonds Sister City Commission.   6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   7.(15 Minutes) AM-7079 Informational Presentation on Affordable Housing by Mark Smith, Executive Director Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County   8.(15 Minutes) AM-7086 Municipal Court Judge Compensation Discussion and Possible Action   9.(20 Minutes) AM-7087 Discussion regarding City Council Meeting Format   10.(40 Minutes) AM-7092 Discussion of Planning Board's Recommendation for Proposed Zoning Changes related to Westgate.   11.(30 Minutes) AM-7089 Presentation on Development Code Update affecting the CG zones in the Highway 99 Area.   12.(15 Minutes) AM-7084 Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 12, 2014.   13.(15 Minutes)Report on outside board and committee meetings   14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   16.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   17.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN            AM-7080     5. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 08-19-14 Draft Council Meeting minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/19/2014 03:31 PM Final Approval Date: 08/19/2014  Packet Page 3 of 212 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 19, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember (arrived 7:44 p.m.) Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember (arrived 6:53 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Petso. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO REMOVE ITEM 12 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Petso was not present for the vote.) Packet Page 4 of 212 Council President Buckshnis explained that due to tonight’s lengthy agenda, Item 12 will be rescheduled to the September 2 meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Petso was not present for the vote.) 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Petso was not present for the vote.)The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #209872 THROUGH #210012 DATED AUGUST 7, 2014 FOR $1,881,841.10 AND CLAIM CHECKS #210013 THROUGH #210129 DATED AUGUST 14, 2014 FOR $364,923.42. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61120 THROUGH 61135 FOR $473,349.33, BENEFIT CHECKS #61136 THROUGH #61144 FOR $90,906.53 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $308,381.98 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16, 2014 THROUGH JULY 31, 2014 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC T. OVERTON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), NANCY COHEN ($116.99), AND JOHN HEIGHWAY ($6,900.00) D. 2014 JUNE QUARTERLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT E. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A BUSINESS LICENSE LATE FEE AMENDMENT F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 220 7TH AVE CURB RAMP AND CURB/GUTTER PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT G. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2014 CITYWIDE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO D&G BACKHOE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $337,759.43 H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 740 15TH ST SW I. PFD QUARTERLY REPORT J. INFORMATION SERVICES UPDATE 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Charles Gold, Edmonds, on behalf of the hundreds of Edmonds citizens who have voiced support for the train trench proposal, thanked Mayor Earling for authorizing an engineer study to assess the initial costs and challenges of a train trench. He thanked Councilmembers who have engaged with Mayor Earling on this subject and helped the proposal reach this point. He thanked the citizens of Edmonds for their positive response to a train trench. It will take commitment and skill to put together the building blocks politically and financially to make Edmonds a showplace of targeted beneficial City planning. The stakes are high; without a serious, thorough and credible proposal to BNSF or if a multi-year alternative study is conducted, Edmonds will be double or triple tracked and there will be large overpasses along the waterfront. He recalled when he first introduced this concept over two years ago, former Community Packet Page 5 of 212 Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton said this would be worth twice the cost of Edmonds Crossing. Mayor Earling explained a professional engineer is being engaged to do an analysis of potential challenges, benefits, and costs. A timeline has not been established. Jim Wassall, Edmonds, resident on Sunset Avenue resident, spoke against Agenda Item 11. He questioned the cost of the proof-of-concept, anticipating paint and the labor to apply it would not be cheap. He was opposed to the entire Sunset Avenue walkway project and viewed this as just another attempt at getting it approved and paid for by someone else. He also expressed concern with the City’s use of the sidewalk on the east side of Sunset Avenue that is on his property. Neither he nor the previous owners have been compensated for the City’s use of the property. 6. WSDOT LANDSLIDE MITIGATION WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION Ron Pate, WSDOT, acknowledged there have been concerns regarding the potential for landslides on the rail line north of Seattle. Significant problems during the 2012/2013 rainy season sparked discussion in Olympia about how to make the situation better. WSDOT does not own the rail line but sponsors the Amtrak Cascade service and Sound Transit operates trains in that corridor. The working group originally began with four participants, Amtrak, WSDOT, BNSF and Sound Transit. Today there are over 17 participants. The original goal was to look at root causes/effects of the landslides; there was a great deal of debate whether it was just terrain shifting, land management practices, etc. As the group considered contributing factors, it was determined water was the root cause of moving slides onto the tracks, delaying trains and causing significant safety concerns. The working group has worked hard over the last couple years to develop short term and long term strategies; today they have an action plan for mitigation. He provided the Council written material that included the action plan. The plan has been touted by BNSF as one of the only places in the nation they have seen this done, bringing the state, cities, municipalities, companies and a commuter agency together to find solutions to make the problem better. Everyone recognizes the problems cannot be completely fixed due to the terrain but steps can be taken to mitigate, make things better and institute better preventive measures. The work group has met over 24 times, their next meeting is September 19; Woodway recently joined the group. BNSF has agreed to waive permit fees for property owners who want to bring stormwater under the tracks in a way that will prevent washouts. Two slope stabilization projects have been constructed. There has been a great deal of public outreach and an open house is scheduled in Edmonds on October 9. When asked by KING 5 the simplest thing property owners on the slope can do, he said grass clippings. When touring the rail line, they noticed people throw grass clippings over side which then become saturated with water. Other things property owners can do will be shared at the workshop. David Smelser, Program Manager, WSDOT, emphasized the importance of local agencies in this process; without them it is difficult to get things off the ground. He appreciated Edmonds’ commitment and offer to host a workshop. Workshops have been held in Mukilteo where a majority of the issues exist and Everett also hosted a workshop this summer. He referred to a list of participants in the Landslide Mitigation Action Plan, the executive summary, and short term, medium term and long term actions. All the short term strategies have been implemented, they are in the middle of the medium/intermediate strategies and he acknowledged there are challenges with the long term strategies although there are large benefits. He encouraged the Council to review the action plan to see if there were ways they could help move the actions forward. He referred to a brochure developed for homeowners, an amalgamation of all the best practices for slopes and stability, particularly those that apply to the rail line. The open house will include representatives from BNSF and the City and homeowners are invited to attend. At the open houses in Mukilteo and Packet Page 6 of 212 Everett, there were many instances where it was the first time a conversation had occurred with a BNSF representative that could make decisions, the local agency and the homeowner. WSDOT’s role is to facilitate discussion because they do not own the rail line or any property nor establish the regulations. Mr. Smelser relayed they received $16.1 million in federal funding to address areas. He referred to a map, advising two projects have been completed and a third, near the Port of Everett, will be underway next week. Preliminary engineering approval and additional funding was recently received for the three projects located in the center of the rail line. They looked at the history of slides over the past 80 years and flew the coast from north of Seattle to Everett with lidar and photogrammetry; that information was used to choose locations where the most frequent slides occur. He referred to a photograph of one the techniques used to prevent slides, a catchment wall, explaining some of the catchment walls are already full. The new catchment walls are set out and are of height that BNSF can clean out behind them. There is also a slide fence on top; if the slide fence is hit and the low voltage electrical current broken, it triggers lights to stop the train until the slide can be evaluated. Other techniques include dewatering the slope and carrying the drainage tightline to the ditch and removing debris from the slope. He explained grass clippings get weighed down and the extra weight can cause a slide. He summarized two projects have been completed, one will be constructed this year and three will be constructed next year, completing that segment of the federal program. Mayor Earling advised the pamphlets will be available tomorrow at the front desk on the main floor of City Hall. Council President Buckshnis thanked WSDOT for the update, commenting on the importance of transportation to economic development. She asked for examples of what has been done to mitigate issues caused by stormwater. Mr. Smelser responded there are several ways to approach it. One of the first was BNSF agreed to handle stormwater from any property owner that is properly conveyed to their ditch via an engineered system as well as waive permit fees which total approximately $3500. Another example, some of the low impact development (LID) techniques that put water into the ground may not be the best method to use close to slope. They worked with Mukilteo to make decisions where to apply LIDs in new development. They also facilitated a discussion between BNSF and Mukilteo to arrive at a solution regarding a city-owned culvert. He summarized no promises but they are willing to help facilitate any discussions and handle stormwater in a way that works for the rail line, the property owner and City. Council President Buckshnis referred to typical mitigation strategies such as stabilization, noting there are some issues with stabilization on banks in Edmonds although they may not cause landslides. She asked who pays for stabilization. Mr. Smelser answered the federal program is paying the cost in the six areas he identified. BNSF has paid for some of it on other occasions. BNSF owns up to 200 feet of right-of-way at the base of the hill but someone else nearly always owns the slope. BNSF is not allowed to work off their property. There is potential for liability for something that happens on property that affects BNSF property. BNSF likes to work cooperatively with the property owners and municipalities; there have been several instances where BNSF has done their own projects. BNSF typically looks at high impact areas but he would be happy to talk to BNSF regarding any low cost projects. Council President Buckshnis referred to erosion at the dog park from the water that has nearly reached the BNSF fence. She asked whether the City or BNSF would be responsible for stabilization if the erosion continues. Mr. Smelser suggested emailing him with any specific areas and he will coordinate BNSF and City representatives looking at the situation. Councilmember Bloom asked whether any landslide areas have been identified in the Edmonds area. Mr. Smelser answered there are literally hundreds of areas identified; he offered to provide a map that Packet Page 7 of 212 identified all the historic slides. Geologists have said the bank has been migrating into Puget Sound for thousands or millions of years and that will likely continue. Councilmember Bloom commented residents at Pt. Edwards have seen some sloughing or mini landslides. She asked whether he could recommend something to stabilize that slope and whether that was one of the landslide hazard area. Mr. Smelser offered to talk with her and/or the property owners. Mayor Earling explained it is just south of the Port of Edmonds. Mr. Smelser explained there are general things in the Mitigation Report as well as resources. WSDOT does not give engineering advice, everyone has to hire their own licensed engineer and he also recommended hiring a geologist and perhaps an arborist. 7. LEAD COURT CLERK JOB DESCRIPTION Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained this job description was reviewed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested it be forwarded to Council for a brief presentation. She explained an operational need has been identified in the Court to work a Court Clerk out of class as a Lead Court Clerk. Establishing a Lead Court Clerk position will also assist with promotion ability and succession planning within the Court. Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair explained early this year the Court Administrator was out for four months on medical leave. At about the same time, the Probation Officer, who has worked for the court for 25 years and has been the de facto lead when the Court Administrator is out, gave two weeks’ notice and moved out of state. A temporary Court Administrator was brought in and the most experienced Court Clerk was moved into a temporary lead position to provide backup for the temporary administrator, provide institutional memory and provide some experience to assist her with the development process to become a Court Administrator. This worked extremely well. A new Probation Officer was hired but he does not have the institutional memory and is not familiar with the court’s operating system. Establishing a Lead Court Clerk position provides an incentive for Clerks to stay by providing opportunity for promotion, backup for the Court Administrator and the Probation Officer, institutional memory and a great training for succession. Court Administrator Joan Ferebee commented this position also frees her up to work on establishing a paperless court which would save the City a lot of money. A paperless court would allow all information to be emailed, paperwork scanned, and all the files would be on the computer rather than paper files. As tickets increase, a paperless court would allow the same level of level of quality and staff to be maintained. Ms. Hite clarified this is not a new position; a current Court Clerk position will be reclassified. The cost will be $2500/year which is within the Court’s current budget authority. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE COURT CLERK POSITION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Petso was not present for the vote.) 8. EMPLOYEE EXPENSES, VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION AND REIMBURSEMENTS POLICY Finance Director Scott James relayed that the Finance Committee reviewed the policy and made a few amendments. The policy is intended to add clarity to the reimbursement policies in the personnel policy such as the volunteer recognition, staff recognition events, etc. that include light refreshments. The heart of the issue is reimbursing expenses where Staff, the Council or the Mayor are conducting City business; it is not intended for birthday or retirement parties. Packet Page 8 of 212 Council President Buckshnis recalled a question raised with the auditor last year about requiring people to sign in for events such an open house, volunteer appreciation, etc. Mr. James relayed the policy states the attendees need to be tracked. He recommended having a sign-in sheet to provide further documentation that the expense is legitimate. Council President Buckshnis recalled the former Finance Director indicated there was $7/person limit; the policy refers to a reasonable limit. Mr. James explained the IRS has a de minimis fringe benefit rule that states anything over $100 is no longer considered a de minimis/fringe benefit and becomes a taxable event. He did not expect the City to pay $100 to recognize volunteers or staff; if it is over $100, it is a taxable event. The policy list things that are taxable and non-taxable, he was unable to find any mention of a $7/person limit. Council President Buckshnis recalled the former Finance Director indicated that was stated by the local auditor. Councilmember Johnson recalled in her discussion with the former Finance Director, the limit was under $10/person. Mr. James relayed in his conversation with the Office of Financial Management, they did not have any recollection of an amount but referred him to the IRS’ de minimis fringe benefit rule. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled in her experience the State had guidelines for meal purchases which were similar to the IRS rules regarding breakfast, lunch and dinner. She was satisfied with the policy but felt it left open the amount that would be paid for an event. She preferred to establish a not to exceed limit. Mr. James referred to clauses that the Mayor has the authority to approve which he acknowledged provide some leeway. A dollar amount could be added to describe “reasonable.” Councilmember Mesaros asked whether an amount is established in the budget for these types of expenses. Mr. James answered the issue arose as a result of emails regarding whether there was a budget for these types of expenses for a Tree Board meeting. A budget authority could be established for each board and commission. Councilmember Mesaros commented in other organizations there is an annual budget established for meetings. Rather than an individual limit, he preferred to establish an annual amount. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of the policy was there were not funds for individual commission meetings but funds for open houses. Mr. James answered the policy refers to board or commission meetings where City business is conducted. He referred to the narrative at the beginning of the policy regarding what is reimbursable, individuals, their office/capacity, what the business is and who is being reimbursed and what is reimbursable. With regard to special events, the policy refers to open house, anniversaries; the policy also specifically refers to business meals. Councilmember Bloom referred to the sentence regarding open houses, City anniversary celebrations and hosting delegations from other jurisdictions. With regard to open houses, she assumed boards and commissions were not allowed money for food at regular meetings but could be for an open house where the public was invited. She asked how reimbursement was handled if a board member paid for the food themselves. Mr. James the proposed policy states an Employee Reimbursement Form is completed and receipts and documentation provided. The name of the form could be modified to remove “employee.” He suggested the Department Head, Mayor or Council President approve the expense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested establishing a budget for each department during the budget process. Councilmember Mesaros suggested during the budget process, staff could look at opportunities and past experience in establishing a budget. Directors could have the authority to approve expenditures for refreshments associated with those activities. He agreed with Councilmember Bloom that refreshments are not served at every meeting, but there many occasions where the need arises and there Packet Page 9 of 212 should be funds for reimbursement. He summarized establishing a budget authority would limit the amount. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with his suggestion. Council President Buckshnis relayed there are plans to establish a budget authority for events. For boards/commission, the volunteer would submit records to the Council Executive Assistant and she would complete the form and submit for payment. Council President Buckshnis was uncertain how the Mayor wanted to handle City departments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the Mayor how he wanted to handle City departments. Mayor Earling answered his intent was to spend as little money as possible. This type of policy needs a limit so there are not endless expenses and that would be his intent for departments under his administration. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mayor Earling’s intent would be one budget in his office rather than individual department budgets. Mayor Earling said his preference would be one budget in his office for departments and he will make the allocations. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYEE EXPENSES, VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Johnson’s intent was to add a budget to the policy or just hope everyone does the right thing. Mr. James suggested adding a 5th bullet on page 1 under Documentation, subject to the budget available to fund the event/meeting. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO ADD A FIFTH BULLET AS DESCRIBED BY MR. JAMES, THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE BUDGET AVAILABLE AND PREAPPROVAL UNDER THE MAYOR’S AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENTS AND UNDER THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNCIL. Councilmember Johnson commented she was uncertain how a preapproval would occur since the Tree Board had never had open house before nor anticipated it in their budget. Councilmember Mesaros explained in Councilmember Johnson’s example, a representative of the Tree Board would seek preapproval from the Mayor prior to event. The amendment was restated as follows: BULLET 5 WOULD READ, SUBJECT TO BUDGET AVAILABLE FOR EVENT AND PREAPPROVAL BY MAYOR FOR STAFF-SPONSORED EVENTS AND BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR COUNCIL-SPONSORED EVENTS. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 9. PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT City Engineer Rob English explained this would be an overview of the larger projects under construction and projects that have been underway since May 2014. He provided photographs of the stormwater detention vault and subgrading for the pavement at the Five Corners Roundabout, explaining the first lift of asphalt pavement has been placed on the northern end of the intersection and work is progressing on the southern end including curb, gutter sidewalk and pavement. The contractor anticipates the intersection can be put into roundabout operation in early September. Even though the center of the road will not be complete, it will be signed and striped to operate as a roundabout. There will be flaggers at the intersection to assist motorists. Packet Page 10 of 212 He provided a photograph of chip seal done on 2nd Avenue as part of the 2014 pavement preservation program and a photograph of the fog seal coat. Chip sealing was also done on 72nd and 73rd. The chip seal is a pilot project; fog sealing was done on two of the three streets in order evaluate the difference in wear. He provided a photograph of a signal cabinet; the City received grant funds to replace antiquated traffic signal equipment at five intersections. He displayed a photograph of the Railroad Avenue sewer main replacement project that also included installation of a water main. The project began in late May and has reached substantial completion. He provided a summary of the projects: • Transportation Projects o 5 corners Roundabout ($2.93M)  Status: 50% complete, expect to complete by end of October o Pavement preservation program ($1.2M)  Status: chip seal complete, overlay work August/September o Citywide Signal Improvement ($210k)  Status: 4 of 5 intersection complete • Utility projects o Sewer main replacement phase 1 ($1.2M)  Status: Substantial complete o Sewer main phase 2 ($1.7M)  Status: 20% complete o 2015 watermain replacement ($1.47M)  Status: construction underway With regard to the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project, Mr. English recalled in February 2014 the Council approved an Inter-local Agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife for a $190,000 grant to begin the design work for rehabilitating the fishing pier. The statements of qualifications for that project were received last week and the process to select a consultant to begin the design work is underway. Councilmember Bloom referred to Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming $10,000 on page 3 of the report which states, The 2014 funds for this program are being allocated to the construction phase of the mid-block pedestrian crossing along SR-104 (directly north of Pine St. / WSDOT project). She asked Mr. Williams to reiterate the explanation he provided at the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meeting regarding how the $10,000 was allocated to this project. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained there was a lot interest, primarily by residents west of SR-104 who find it difficult cross SR- 104 due to the speeds and the width of the road. There is no crosswalk at Pine Street and the need has existed for some time. In searching for funding and determining the cost, there were several conversations, some facilitated by Mayor Earling, and the City approached WSDOT to inquire whether they were interested in assisting with such a project. WSDOT applied and received funding for the project and are executing the project. The crosswalk which will cost approximately $300,000, will be located slightly north of the alignment of Pine Street for sight distance issues and will include retro-reflective beacons for pedestrians that will help calm traffic and notify drivers of the crosswalk. WSDOT contacted the City a few weeks ago indicating it would be easier for them to obtain the construction money if they had a local partner and asked if the City could provide some funding. At that time the $10,000 budgeted for 2014 traffic calming, which is an element of this project, had not been allocated. In the past two years the funds had been used to purchase and install radar signs. As the crosswalk relates to traffic calming, the City offered a $10,000 match on a $300,000 project to assist WSDOT in acquiring construction funding. Packet Page 11 of 212 Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Williams saying Mayor Earling and Councilmember Peterson advocated with the legislature for the funding for that project. Mr. Williams did not recall saying the Mayor Earling or Councilmember Peterson lobbied the legislature for the funding but the City actively worked the process through WSDOT. Councilmember Bloom indicated she had several concerns with this. She recalled when the Council reviewed the Sunset Avenue project in June, it was stated $16,000 was allocated in 2011 from the traffic calming program. At that time she inquired about the criteria for the traffic calming program and did not receive an answer. In conducting her own researching, she found approximately 19 pages on the traffic calming program in the Transportation Comprehensive Plan which includes three phases. Phase 1, resident’s petition for local street traffic concerns and eight households are supposed to be on the petition. She pointed out this is not a local street traffic concern; it is a state highway concern. The 19 pages include a list of 23 prioritized traffic calming project; this crosswalk in not on that list. In addition, this project is not on the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). She summarized this had not gone through the proper public process and she did not support allocating $10,000 from the traffic calming program to a major $300,000 project. Councilmember Bloom asked who prioritized this project, commenting it did not seem to be a priority of anyone except perhaps the residents at Pt. Edwards. She questioned why $10,000 from the 2014 traffic calming program would be allocated to a $300,000 project which had not been vetted by the public, how it became a priority when it did not meet the criteria of the traffic calming program and it was not on the TIP. Mr. Williams explained the City was contacted by many more than eight citizens who live west of SR-104. It arose as an emergent issue, it was related to traffic calming and he made the decision. Councilmember Bloom clarified Mr. Williams made the decision to allocated $10,000 to the project. Mr. Williams agreed he had. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the forms in the traffic calming program were completed by those citizens and were the other phases were completed such the second phase, staff and residents develop education and enforcement solutions or the third phase, staff reviews traffic calming devices for funding, priority and technical feasibility. She observed none of these phases seem to have been followed and none of the public process has happened. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the Council had jurisdiction over the funds in the traffic calming program. Mayor Earling explained opportunities arise that may not be on a list. There has been considerable comment from the public, including people on the hill, looking for a safe way to cross the street. He did not go to Olympia to advocate for the crosswalk; he did meet with WSDOT. This is a rare opportunity; $10,000 for traffic calming that, although it may not be on the list, leverages a $300,000 project that will create safety for motorists and pedestrians. Councilmember Petso asked if the project was on the Comprehensive Plan, TIP or CFP. Mr. Williams answered he would need to check the CFP, it is possible. Councilmember Petso suggested putting this on the Finance Committee agenda instead of continuing this discussion. She recalled parameters when funds are budgeted for a certain purpose; sometimes the funds must be used for that purpose, other times if it within the same fund, it can be used for another purpose. If it is not appropriate to take the funds from the traffic calming program, she suggested allocating the funds from ending cash instead and it was likely the Council would still approve it. She suggested referring it to the Finance Committee to allow her and Councilmember Johnson to discuss with Mr. James the extent of Council’s and staff’s authority with regard to the budget. Councilmember Bloom agreed and requested a presentation regarding the traffic calming program to inform citizens how to access those funds. Mr. Williams responded he was happy to provide that presentation; he did not recall a previous request for that information. Packet Page 12 of 212 Councilmember Bloom referred to a letter in the Beacon regarding many near accidents involving children at City Park that has been observed by the residents in the nearby condominiums. She noted that could potentially be a priority, also it was also not among the 23 priorities in the traffic calming program. She did not support allocating that $10,000 to the SR-104 crosswalk when there are so many other traffic safety issues throughout the City. She spoke in favor of following the public process and reiterated her request for a presentation to inform citizens about the process. That would allow residents near City Park to learn about the process and for funds to be allocated to small projects as was intended rather than major projects. Mr. Williams assured this major project is a traffic calming project. It was an emergent issue; WSDOT contacted the City in search of City funds to obtain their construction funding. That was the only place he had to get the funds. It was used for a very legitimate purpose related to traffic calming. The issue on 3rd was called to staff’s attention and staff is working on it. He had a conversation with Ms. Hite recently; the problem has gotten worse as a result of increased pedestrian traffic crossing 3rd Avenue due to the new play equipment in City Park. They are trying to determine a solution that could be included in the project. He was uncertain whether that would be funded by future traffic calming funds. He agreed it was a legitimate need and assured staff is working on. Council President Buckshnis said she will schedule a presentation regarding the traffic calming program on August 23. She referred to the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Retrofit Study, and asked about the public meeting scheduled on the draft plan. Councilmember Johnson advised it was held last week. Council President Buckshnis referred to the Willow Creek Daylighting Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study, and asked whether it included the $155,000 grant. Mr. English answered it did not. Council President Buckshnis relayed she has asked Keely O’Connell, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster and Development Services Director Shane Hope to make a presentation regarding Willow Creek. There is a great deal of interest in that project including by WRIA 8. Councilmember Peterson commended staff for finding a way to get the Pine Street crosswalk funded and budgeted. He did not lobby in Olympia; he called his State Representative and encouraged Pt. Edwards residents and others who were interested in the project to call their State Representatives. This is an incredibly important project especially as Pt. Edwards grows. There is often talk about increasing walkability and what that means for citizens’ health as well as economic development and making Edmonds a great community to live in. This safety project is a key element to connect the one of the major developments constructed in the past 15 years to the rest of the City. He commended staff for working on this, noting this project was pointed out to him in his early days on Council. It will be a great safety improvement as well as a community asset. As the only Councilmember impacted by the crosswalk, Councilmember Mesaros expressed his pleasure at its installation. He often walks to Council meetings and especially in the evening it is risky to cross SR- 104, requiring “ready, set, run.” He noted government does not have good reputation for well managed projects, he was impressed when staff reports on projects, how well project have been managed. He thanked staff, especially Mr. Williams and Mr. English. 10. ACTION ON ORDINANCE REPEALING ECC 10.80 CITIZENS COMMISSION ON THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Council President Buckshnis commented the Council can consider initiating a citizens commission in future. On August 26 the Council will have a work session on the Judge’s salary and the Finance Committee will discuss the Mayor’s salary at their September meeting. There was little impact on the Council’s salary from the commission’s recommendation other than the addition of $2,000 for training. Packet Page 13 of 212 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. ___, REPEALING ECC 10.80 CITIZENS COMMISSION ON THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. Councilmember Petso clarified although she will support the motion she is not voting for any future actions that Council President Buckshnis described. Her motivation was not to attempt to redo the citizens commission’s work but to acknowledge that the process and procedures were not what was desired. She was content to let the issue rest until the next review period. She did not mind whether a new citizens commission was established only for Council compensation or for all elected officials. She anticipated some changes would be made to the code section to provide clarity regarding the appointment process, the number of commissioners that are required and to state that all meetings need to be open public meetings. Councilmember Peterson advised he will vote against the motion for the reasons he stated at the August 14 meeting. Councilmember Mesaros stated he will vote against the motion. He found it unfortunate that the results of the previous commission and the hard work done by those citizens was not honored by the Council. He believed the commission acted in good faith and made a forthright recommendation that the Council should accept. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas anticipated if there had been a full commission with seven voting members, the outcome probably would have been different, at least for her. Councilmember Petso recalled the commission’s action was deemed null and void due to a failure to fully comply with the Open Public Meetings Act. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed that was his opinion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 11. PROOF-OF-CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR THE SUNSET AVENUE SIDEWALK PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained conversations about Sunset Avenue began before he came to the City and it has been discussed frequently since 2011, increasing during the past year when grant funds were obtained to pursue design of a project. There are a lot of concerns about the project related to the geometry, safety, interface with BNSF railroad property, and parking and how the project would affect those issues. The intent of a proof-of-concept project on Sunset would be to test the theories to determine which concerns are real, worse than thought and better than thought and to gather experience over a year with the geometry in the most difficult part of the alignment. The project is contained in the CIP, CFP and TIP, PROS Plan and the budget as well as referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. The reasons for this project include maximizing the public’s access to views, improved safety for all travel modes and providing accessibility. He displayed photographs of people walking in the street and west of the curb on the dirt path to illustrate accessibility issues. The Sunset Avenue Walkway proof-of-concept only deals with the “railroad line” segment where the geometry has been questioned and where the BNSF property line extends beyond the curb and onto the developed footprint of Sunset Avenue. The proof-of-concept is mostly a painting project to gain experience with the concept at very little cost, approximately $20,000 versus $2 million to build the project as has been discussed before. Packet Page 14 of 212 He displayed an aerial photograph of Sunset Avenue beginning at the south, at the end of the existing sidewalk. The plan would be to connect the existing sidewalk to the painted walkway. There is sufficient width in this area to accommodate the existing parking, two-way traffic lanes and a pathway. The pathway would be on the waterside of the existing curb on Sunset, 8-feet wide to connect the existing sidewalk to locations near Edmonds Street where the railroad line section begins. He displayed the next section at Edmonds Street, identifying the curb line that extends into Sunset Avenue where the one-way street begins. The proposal is to put in a crosswalk at this location so people walking on the east side of Sunset Avenue can cross to the temporary walkway. An ADA ramp will need to be installed on the west side to provide ADA-compliant access. Just past that point, the current angle parking begins. He displayed the next photograph that shows the angle parking continuing. The recommendation is to slightly change the angle of the angle parking and add 8 spaces to the existing 12 for a total of 20 angle spaces. He pointed out that to this point the temporary walkway is on the west side of the curb. He identified the railroad property line on the map, pointing out it moves closer to the path as Sunset continues north to the point where it touches the new temporary path. To avoid constructing anything new on railroad property, at this point the existing curb would gradually be moved further east so that the 8- foot path stays off railroad property. At the point where the railroad property jogs east is where the overlay between BNSF property ownership and the City’s existing street is most acute. At this point the path would transition to the existing pavement on Sunset Avenue. He identified the multi-use walkway, a 2-foot clear zone painted yellow, 9 parallel parking spaces, and a travel lane marked as a sharrow that is shared by vehicles and bicycles. If a walkway is constructed in the future, the 2-foot area would be a mountable curb. Councilmember Bloom asked about the dirt path in relation to BNSF property line. Mr. Williams identified the dirt path just the outside the existing curb. The temporary pathway would have people walking on the west side of the street but further east than the existing dirt path. Councilmember Bloom asked the location of the dirt path between Bell Street and Caspers. Mr. Williams identified the point where the BNSF right-of-way jogs; the dirt path is on railroad property in that area. He noted the dirt path is not continuous through that area, in some places it disappears and people walk in the street. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the proposal was a pathway that would be on the east side of the curb. Mr. Williams answered yes, from this point. The proposal is to stripe the current asphalt as a walkway next to the curb, the 2-foot clear zone, and then parallel parking. Councilmember Bloom observed where the BNSF property line jogs, the pathway goes completely off the dirt path and into the street and moves the parking further east. Mr. Williams answered yes, commenting all the parking is shifted east. From the point where the curb is moved east, the path will be on the existing street. Councilmember Bloom asked how much space is left in the street. Mr. Williams answered in the areas where there is parallel parking there will be a 13 foot wide sharrow which is fully compliant with MUTCD standards. Mr. Williams displayed the alignment further north, identifying the curb, the 8-foot path, the 2-foot yellow striped zone and 9 parallel parking spaces. The parallel parking beyond this point will be redistributed to avoid problems with the narrow driveways on the east side. As this is a temporary project he did not want to undertake the expense of modifying the driveway entrances. The result is one more parking space than currently exists although it is in different locations and there is more angle parking. As the walkway nears the north end of Sunset there are 3 parallel parking spaces. There are currently 17 parallel parking spaces and 12 angle parking spaces for a total of 29; in the proposed proof-of-concept there are 20 angle parking spaces and 12 parallel parking spaces for a total of 32. Packet Page 15 of 212 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the issue Mr. Wassall raised regarding the City sidewalk on their property. Mr. Williams explained on the east side of Sunset Avenue some property made dedications for the sidewalk and others did not. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Williams identified the location of the railroad right-of-way in this section, advising it eventually returns to about the curb at approximately Caspers. Mr. Williams displayed drawings of how the pathway would be marked, the 2-foot area between the pathway and parallel parking, red lines to identify no parking areas and the sharrow. As BNSF depends on the City to maintain plantings to discourage people from accessing their property, he suggested the City plant low level plantings such as Oregon Grape just west of the existing curb to discourage walking on that side of the curb and to encourage use of the walkway. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether this would move bikes off the walkway onto the sharrow. Mr. Williams said the proposal is not to move bikes off the walkway. The symbol on the pathway will be a multiuse pathway. He suggested since this is a trial project, it begin with allowing bicycles on the pathway to allow an informed decision whether bikes and pedestrian can co-exist on an 8-foot path. If an issue arises during the trial, bikes can be taken off the pathway. If the projects begins with not allowing bicycles on the pathway, there will be no way to determine if it will be a problem. He acknowledged there are a lot of opinions regarding that issue. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the benches and tables would be removed. Mr. Williams answered no, the benches would remain. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there was a minimum sharrow width, recalling in Vancouver BC she did not see any less than 15 feet and most are 18-20 feet. Mr. Williams answered it depends on traffic volumes and the professional judgment of those designing the street. For example this is 13 feet marked as a sharrow; there are 11-foot lanes on 5th Avenue marked as a sharrow. Many people think 13-14 feet is better; Seattle marks a lot of lanes as sharrows that are less than that. Council President Buckshnis asked about access for fire trucks, oil trucks, etc. Mr. Williams answered under the International Fire Code, fire trucks need 20 feet to set up a truck. They would not choose to set up their truck in a place on Sunset Avenue where there is parallel parking. Dragging hoses 200 feet is a standard expectation for a pumper truck so fire personnel would set up in an area where there is no parallel parking where they would have the requisite space to operate. Mr. Williams reviewed the last section at the end of street. A crosswalk would be marked from the pathway to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Caspers. What is done on Caspers and south of Edmonds Street are future decisions. The key is to gather information regarding the railroad line section. He summarized the proof-of-concept project: • Redistributes some parking along the street but keeps total parking spaces the same • Does not require approval of BNSF • Cost, at approximately $20,000, is less than 1% of full project cost • Data can be gathered that will either be used in the design of a follow-on walkway project or used to make a decision not to pursue the concept further • Cheaper than moving forward with a detailed design Councilmember Peterson asked the existing speed limit on Sunset Avenue. Mr. Williams advised it is 20 mph. Councilmember Peterson commented in his work with bicycle groups, that is a reasonable speed limit for a sharrow. He recalled public comment that some with severe mobility issues may be unable to access this walkway even if it is accessible. He asked how many ADA parking spaces will be provided in Packet Page 16 of 212 this configuration and whether more could be added. Mr. Williams answered there are currently three; that number could be at least duplicated and more could be marked if desired. Councilmember Petso commented her research found this is a walkway project in the CIP. She asked whether the primary reason for moving away from the walkway to a multiuse pathway was to secure grant funding. Mr. Williams explained it is called the Sunset Avenue Walkway but that does not mean it was not envisioned as a multiuse pathway. Although the preponderance of users will be pedestrians, he envisioned families with young children on bikes with training wheels using the pathway to practice their skills. He did not envision serious bicyclists would find this a comfortable place to ride; the trail/demonstration project will prove that one way or another. Councilmember Petso recalled the language in the current CFP describes this as a walkway which would allow instead of striping it as Mr. Williams described, painting a 5-foot sidewalk, a 2-foot clear zone, the same travel lane and a 3-foot bike lane on the east. Mr. Williams advised the existing bike lane is 6 feet. He agreed Councilmember Petso’s proposal, a 5-foot sidewalk, 2 foot clear zone, parking, 11-foot travel and 6 foot bike lane would fit. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON SUNSET AVENUE. Councilmember Peterson expressed appreciation for the thought that has gone into this by citizens, council and staff to try to answer some of the questions that cannot be answered without a demonstration and actual data whether empirical or subjective. He pointed out Sunset Avenue is and can be an important piece of the walkability puzzle that is Edmonds. If the desire is to have Edmonds be a walkable city for families, retirees and children, this is a phenomenal project that will take full advantage of the waterfront as well as be an environmentally sustainable way to get people out of their cars. He concluded this is a very sensible step. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas liked the idea of having the concept painted and then determining in a year what will and will not work. This project illustrates flexibility and an in-between approach that she viewed as a win-win. She was concerned about the property owner’s comment about the sidewalk on the east. She pictured having to move sidewalk west three feet which would kill the project. Mr. Williams responded that is a valid question but he did not envision the issue would be approached in that manner. A more likely scenario would be to work with the property owners to get the property dedicated. Councilmember Petso said she will not support the motion due to her concern with the safety issues of mixing dog walkers and cyclists on the west side above the cliff. She preferred a walkway on the west and a bike path on the east to keep those user groups separated. If that means the City has to pay for the sidewalk itself she was willing to do that. She did not consider this a reasonable test; if something goes wrong, she hoped the project could be terminated. She feared the data could unfortunately be an accident that was between unfortunate and tragic. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEMS 14 AND 15 PRIOR TO AGENDA ITEM 13. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. PHASE 4 – ENERGY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Packet Page 17 of 212 Mr. Williams explained the City has gone through several Energy Service Contracting (ESCO) processes in past. They have been very successful in reducing energy consumption, reducing the carbon footprint and saving money. This is Phase 4 which is focused at the waste water treatment plant (WWTP). Mr. Williams asked for approval to authorize Mayor Earling to: • Extend agreement with Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES) • Accept a Department of Commerce grant for $255,000 • Authorize the allocation of $550,000 for the completion of two energy efficiency measures using the ESCO means for project delivery Ron Major, Project Manager, State of Washington Department of Enterprise Services (DES), explained DES has been conducting energy services performance contracting (ESPC) for 20 years and saving public sector clients including Edmonds a lot of energy and money. ESPC is a program DES offers. They prequalify ESCOs every two years via a formal competitive process. He explained an ESPC is a contract between an energy service company (ESCO) and the DES under which DES: • Prequalifies firms wishing to participate in the ESP programs an ESCO • Manages the contracting process • Enforces contract provisions The City selects from DES’ preapproved list which ESCO they want to use. The ESCO: • Performs detailed energy audits • Identifies energy and operational savings opportunities • Designs infrastructure improvements that reduce resource consumption • Causes the improvements to be implemented as the general contractor • Guarantees not-to-exceed cost, performance, and energy savings. After the audits are performed, the ESCO develops an energy services proposal that defines the scope of work, project cost, energy savings and performance parameters for the equipment to be installed. There are three guarantees: 1) maximum project cost, 2) energy performance, and 3) equipment performance. If the project exceeds the maximum guaranteed project cost, there is no cost to the City; that cost is paid by the contractor. If the energy performance guarantee is not met, the ESCO contractor corrects the deficiency and if that is not possible, pays the City for the shortfall in the energy savings. With regard to the equipment performance guarantee, if the equipment fails to perform as indicated, the ESCO contractor must fix the equipment to ensure it operates as promised. Mr. Major described energy performance contracting benefits: • ESPCs shifts project risk from the customer to the ESCO o ESCO guarantees the construction cost and is responsible for cost overruns o ESCO guarantees energy savings and reimburses owner for shortfalls o ESCO provides annual measurement and verification of resource savings • ESPCs provide single source accountability and enhance customer control of equipment and subcontractor selection • ESPCs reduce future energy costs and use the saving to pay for infrastructure improvements implemented today He advised in the 20 years of doing ESPCs, DES has never had a project go to arbitration or a lawsuit. He provided a graph of ESPC impact on costs, illustrating how projects can be funded via the energy savings. Packet Page 18 of 212 Gary Roberto, Project Developer, Ameresco, explained he represents a team of skilled engineers, construction managers, contracting specialists and technicians that deliver the projects. He reviewed previous successes in Edmonds: • Phase 1: HVAC at City Hall, Library and Public Safety Buildings • Phase 2: Lighting and water conservation • Phase 3: Citywide projects: HVAC, lighting and building controls o Saves 250,097 kWh and 9,823 therms = $29,187/year o Electrical energy savings equivalent to powering 20 Snohomish County homes o Simple payback of 13.7 years o Carbon footprint reduction of 174 tons/year He noted the WWTP received the SnoPUD Energy Challenge Award in 2013. He displayed a diagram of the WWTP process flow, noting the key is separating solids from liquid. He described the process flow: influent enters, goes into a primary clarifier in which dense solids settle to the bottom and liquid is transferred into one of three aeration basin in which microbes act on the solids in the present of oxygen that bubbles up through the aeration basin. The remaining liquid containing the solids flows to a secondary clarifier where the solids settle to the bottom and the clarified liquid is transfer to the chlorine contact chamber where it is disinfected through the use of sodium hypochlorite that is introduced into the stream and discharged into Puget Sound. The solids are collected in a dewatering system where the water is pressed out and the resulting moist cake is transferred to an incinerator where it is burned and the ash is delivered to the landfill. He noted this is a complex process that requires skilled operators. Anything done to one of the processes affects another downstream. In doing energy conservation projects in the City, the easy projects are done first, leaving more complex projects such as these proposed at the WWTP. He identified the phases at the WWTP: Phase 4: Aeration basins Phase 5: Disinfection and dewatering systems Phase 7: Alternate means of disposing of dewatered sludge He provided details regarding the current project: • Compressed air system upgrades o Replace existing compressors with two high efficiency units with capacity matched to the load o Analyze system for leaks o Energy savings $63k kWh/year and $5,000/year • Aeration basin 2 upgrades o Install baffles to achieve plug flow o Install upgrade air distribution system and ultrafine bubble diffusers which will reduce airflow requirements o Install high efficient blower which will supply air at the lower requirement based on current flow and high efficiency diffusers o Evaluate the potential for enhanced process controls o Energy savings: 3500,000 kWh/year and $29,000/year He summarized Phase 4, Compressed Air and Aeration Basin 2 Upgrades • Total savings of 417,430 kWh = $34,062/year • Electric energy equivalent to powering 34 Snohomish County homes • Project has simple payback of 13.6 years • Carbon footprint reduction of 187 tones • Total guaranteed project price $884,792 • Less approved grant from Dept of Commerce $254,000 • Less SnoPUD emergency incentive $ 80,767 Packet Page 19 of 212 • WWTP partner $550,025 • Edmonds’ responsibility $278,833 He provided a preview of Phase 5: • Sludge Dewatering (belt filter press installed 1988) o Install screw press dewatering system  Closed system simplifies foul air handling  Uses less spray and washdown water, reduces recycle flow and pumping costs  Better solids capture reduces secondary treatment  Produces dryer sludge for downstream processing  Saves electrical energy  Scalable • Polymer mixwater heating o Install heat exchanger to capture waste heat from incinerator ash slurry • Sludge mixing tank o Install 14,000 gallon primary sludge/WAS mixing tank with large bubble mixing in belt process room • Ultraviolet disinfection o Eliminates worker exposure to chemicals o Non corrosive, protects the receiving waters and marine life from potential of toxic byproducts of chemicals o Reduces truck traffic to plant by 65 loads/year o Saves $55,000 in electricity vs. chemical costs o Eliminates ongoing chlorine contract chamber O&M, daily residual testing, cleaning of channel, equipment and instrumental maintenance estimated at $65,000/year o Will reduce recurring capital costs for channel repairs due to corrosiveness of chlorine He described Phase 7, alternative means of disposing of the dewatered sludge. Future emissions standards will increase the cost of operating incineration equipment. Mr. Williams advised Ameresco was selected based on their past excellent performance on energy saving projects in the City. One of the benefits is replacing old equipment that would have to be replaced at some point anyway. The new equipment is more energy efficient and the savings generate a revenue stream to access low interest loans, qualify for grants and SnoPUD energy incentives. In addition to the energy savings, carbon footprint reduction and cost savings, there are maintenance and labor savings as well as the opportunity to replace old equipment with new without the City paying for it all. Councilmember Johnson asked about the alternative methods of disposing of the sludge. Mr. Williams answered the City has generally been happy with the onsite incineration; it can be done on City property and produces a small volume of material to be disposed of. The EPA plans to further regulate sewage sludge incinerators. The City can meet the new standards initially but there is a possibility or even likelihood those standards will continue to be lowered over time. Gasification would be one way to avoid that problem. If it qualified as an energy savings project, the City could access financing to replace the aging incinerator with new technology. That is a future phase; the only phase the Council is asked to approve tonight is phase 4. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPROVE A DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES ENERGY PROGRAM CONTRACT FOR $884,792 FOR PHASE 4 - ENERGY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AS PRESENTED. AND ALSO AUTHORIZE PLACEMENT OF A DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GRANT FOR $254,000 TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA FOR Packet Page 20 of 212 APPROVAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE GRANT CONTRACT IS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Councilmember Peterson recalled years ago when he and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had a tour of the treatment plant, he found it a fascinating operation. He asked whether there were alternatives to taking the ash to the transfer station such as using it as mulch. Mr. Williams answered it is not impossible but is complicated. One of the obvious ways to use it would be an additive in cement thereby encapsulating any remaining materials of concern and also generating a usable product. The regulations associated with reuse are very complicated and he was unsure that was a productive thing to pursue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. REPORT AND PROJECT CLOSE OUT FOR THE WWTP SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE PROJECT Mr. Williams explained the equipment is outside in the marine air and although it has a rain hood, the internal workings and electrical connections are corroding and is a potential future point of failure. The other key piece is the automatic transfer switch which has been corroding over time; in the event of a failure or the incoming power failed in a storm, the transfer switch senses the loss of power and connects the plant to the onsite diesel generator to continue operating the plant. The fear was that one or both would fail in the middle of the night during a storm when flows are high and result in wastewater going in places it was not intended. The City contracted with Ewing Electric for $1.39 million, $118,000 was paid to HDR to design the improvements, plus miscellaneous costs brought the total project cost to $1.274 million. The overall budget was $1.4 million so the project was approximately $126,000 under budget and completed on time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO ACCEPT THE SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE PROJECT. Councilmember Mesaros commented this is another example of good budgeting and good spending, an example of the fine work done by staff. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. INTRODUCTION TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" (ECDC 21.55.010), DEFINING "LOT OF RECORD" (ECDC 21.55.015) AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING "INNOCENT PURCHASER" (ECDC 20.75.180). (AMD20140001) This item was rescheduled to the September 2 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 13. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING WESTGATE, AND POTENTIAL ACTION Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan proposal for amendment has three parts: • Replacing the 2009 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan with the 2014 plan approved by Council earlier this year. • Replacing the 2009 Community Cultural Plan with the 2014 plan approved by Council earlier this year • Text amendment regarding Westgate Packet Page 21 of 212 She advised there were no Comprehensive Plan zoning map proposals. Typically Comprehensive Plan amendments are considered no more than once a year, but there is no specific timeline in the City’s code or under State law for when that occurs. In addition to the once a year Comprehensive Plan amendments, there are some exceptions such as amending the Capital Facilities Element. For example if a budget amendment or adoption of the budget necessitates changing the Capital Facilities Element, that can be done outside the annual process. She anticipated that would occur later this year. The 2014 amendments are relatively simple; there were no citizen applications. The text amendment regarding Westgate differs from the Westgate zoning proposal, a separate but related proposal that will be discussed at the Council’s August 26 meeting. This is the third meeting regarding the 2014 amendments; the first was July 22 as part of the Westgate proposal and the second was a public hearing on August 4. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney includes background on the processes. In January/February 2014 the Planning Board held a public hearing followed by the Council’s public hearing on the Community Cultural and the PROS Plans. During the past couple years the Planning Board has had several hearings on the Comprehensive Plan text amendment in combination with the zoning issues relate to Westgate. The Council also had a public hearing on August 4. The packet includes documentation regarding the PROS and Community Cultural Plans as exhibits to the ordinance. There is already a section in the Land Use element regarding community commercial. The only community commercial area is Westgate. The intent of the Westgate text amendment is to combine the goals identified via the Westgate process into the Comprehensive Plan text to provide a framework for potential revisions to the code that will be discussed next week. It is anticipated the Council will adopt the CFP later this year as part of the budget process. Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments will wrap up the Comprehensive Plan now versus waiting until December. For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Chave advised the CFP would be adopted later this year; there are no other Comprehensive Plan amendments. Council President Buckshnis inquired about removing the Steven Hospital Master Plan. Mr. Chave advised that would be done as part of the 2015 update. Council President Buckshnis asked whether this text amendment was a Westgate subarea plan. Mr. Chave answered these are very general policies; a subarea plan is much more detailed. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the community commercial text was being removed and replaced with the Westgate text. Mr. Chave referred to packet page 547, pointing out Westgate is now specifically mentioned but the language regarding community commercial is retained and the Comprehensive Plan map still identifies Westgate and community commercial area. He summarized this is very general, high level language that includes concepts identified in the Westgate study. Council President Buckshnis spoke in support of adding amusement establishments as proposed by Dr. Senderoff. Mr. Chave agreed that could be done but suggested taking out the parenthetical reference to conditional use because that is zoning issue versus a Comprehensive Plan issue. Council President Buckshnis asked how an amusement establishment would be defined, noting it was a somewhat nebulous term. Mr. Chave agreed, relaying it was fine as a general statement of intent; translating it into zoning would be challenging. For example there is no way to regulate family friendly; a use can be family friendly in one context and family unfriendly in another context such as a video arcade or movie theater. Councilmember Petso asked whether community commercial applied to the areas on the Comprehensive Plan map designated as Westgate Corridor and Edmonds Way Corridor in addition to Westgate. Mr. Chave answered those areas have their own map designations and there are text sections that address the corridors. This language does not apply to those corridors in the current Comprehensive Plan and will not apply to them with this text amendment. Packet Page 22 of 212 Councilmember Petso pointed out the Comprehensive Plan map designates a Westgate area that does not match the Westgate proposal area. Mr. Chave was uncertain what the discrepancy was, advising the Westgate area is generally described on the Comprehensive Plan map. Councilmember Petso explained to the west it runs into the Westgate Corridor, to the east it runs into the Edmonds-Way Corridor, to the south it runs into properties now designated residential near the high school. She summarized there are three areas that have been discussed as part of the Westgate plan that are not identified as Westgate on the Comprehensive Plan map. She asked whether the text amendment would only apply to the smaller area designated on the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Chave answered the text amendment matches what is shown on the Comprehensive Plan map. Councilmember Petso asked whether the area outside Westgate on the Comprehensive Plan map would be governed by the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave said he would need to analyze the area Councilmember Petso referred to in more detail. In general, the Westgate area is identified on Comprehensive Plan map; these policies apply to that area. There will also be some transitional areas. Councilmember Petso recalled previously being told with regard to the CFP that there were limitations on how often it could be amended and that it needed to be consistent with Parks and Transportation Plans which it presently was not. By approving this amendment, part of the plan would be inconsistent but that inconsistency was not being fixed. Mr. Chave was not aware of any inconsistency. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso provided examples • The 76th & 212th project which is in the CFP as a dot in the intersection, is now restriping the corridor • The Sunset Walkway project is a walkway and does not include Caspers Street, but the current proposal includes Caspers and is a multiuse pathway. Councilmember Petso recalled raising this issue when the Council approved the TIP and understood the plan was to fix inconsistencies at the next Comprehensive Plan amendment opportunity. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the discussion that the TIP would always be inconsistent with the CFP for a brief period of time because the TIP is adopted in the summer and the CFP is adopted in conjunction with the budget. He recalled any inconsistencies would be resolved when the CFP is adopted. Councilmember Petso recalled there was discussion regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan as she assumed the inconsistency would be addressed when the Comprehensive Plan was amended. This proposal does not do that and she questioned whether that was a GMA violation. Mr. Taraday answered most cities have the same period of time where the TIP is adopted in the summer and the CFP is adopted with the budget and nothing is being done to increase that period of time. Because there were very few Comprehensive Plan amendments this year, the amendments can be adopted earlier. Councilmember Petso commented the previous schedule was to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendments in December so everything was consistent. Mr. Chave commented historically the CFP is not adopted at the same meeting as other Comprehensive Plan amendments as the CFP is tied to the budget. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding the CIP was tied to the budget and the CFP was a planning document. Mr. Chave answered there is some overlay; some of the CFP projects are CIP projects and vice versa. Councilmember Petso recalled there is criterion in the code that applies to Comprehensive Plan amendments decisions. Ms. Hope advised the findings are referenced in the ordinance. Councilmember Petso relayed one of the standards is maintains the appropriate balance of land uses in the City. The map Packet Page 23 of 212 she sent staff allows 40% of the greater Westgate area to have residential only buildings. Ms. Hope advised that was part of the zoning code decision and was not related to this text amendment. It is the same commercial area; some of it could be mixed use under the Comprehensive Plan amendment but the amendment does not specify where, what type of mixed use, or a percentage. Councilmember Petso relayed under the proposed zoning some areas can be straight multi-family. She asked whether that will that be eliminated if the Council adopts the mixed use amendment tonight. Ms. Hope advised the zoning code still needs to be decided; that will not affect the text amendment. Councilmember Petso observed the text amendment designates the area in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use. Ms. Hope clarified the text amendment states mixed use could occur there. Mr. Chave read from the Comprehensive Plan on packet page 547, goal C, “The intent of the community commercial designation is to recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character.” He explained the idea of mixed use has always been there; that language is not being changed. The details of how that mixed use occurs and to what degree it occurs is implementation which is done via zoning. Councilmember Petso referred to the deletion of C2, “Provides for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate automobile traffic.” and asked whether automobile traffic will no longer be accommodated at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered that was deleted due to redundancy with other language. Councilmember Petso observed another other major change is deleting language regarding providing for the pedestrian scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in height and contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity, observing the proposal is up to four stories in height and there are no pedestrian design features. Mr. Chave answered there are plenty of pedestrian design features. The limitation on two stories is being eliminated. The implementation will be accomplished via zoning. Councilmember Petso asked what the height limit would be if the two story limit were removed before the height limit in the zoning code is adopted. Mr. Chave answered the height limit would be in accordance with the existing zoning until the Council adopts new zoning for Westgate. If the language regarding two stories is retained in the text, the zoning could not be contrary to that. Councilmember Petso asked why that was being removed before the zoning was adopted. Mr. Chave answered the Comprehensive Plan should not designate things such as stories but rather the overall character and what is trying to be achieved. Specifying stories or a height limit is an implementation tool which is zoning. If the Council adopts this tonight and then acts on the Westgate Plan using the larger area, Councilmember Petso asked whether the Comprehensive Plan map would need to be changed to match that map. Mr. Chave answered if any of the zoning changes go outside the Westgate proper, it likely would not be inconsistent with the language that applied to the corridors. He would need to look at what Councilmember Petso was referring to. Councilmember Petso relayed concern that the Westgate Plan map does not match the Comprehensive Plan map, yet the Comprehensive Plan text is being revised but not the Comprehensive Plan map. Ms. Hope advised the official Comprehensive Plan map is the land use map not the illustrations that go with the text. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Chave advised there is a zoning map and a Comprehensive Plan map. Councilmember Petso asked whether the text amendment applied to the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Chave answered yes. Council President Buckshnis commented the definitions are not being changed the changed, the only change is paragraph C, Goals for the Westgate Community Commercial Area. Paragraph B, the goals for the Westgate Corridor, identifying it as a key transportation corridor, are not being changed. And Paragraph F, the goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor, are also not being changed. Mr. Chave commented Packet Page 24 of 212 the designations on the Comprehensive Plan map are not hard boundaries; there will be transition areas where decisions are made by the zoning. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION TO ANOTHER DATE DUE TO THE LATE HOUR AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE. Councilmember Johnson raised a concern about the lack of evaluation or prioritization of projects in the PROS Plan and that Council direction is not considered in submitting application for grant or determining which projects the most important. She recommended the Council discuss how to identify capital projects. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed it was late to decide these issues and she anticipated greater productivity if the issue was discussed earlier at a future meeting. Council President Buckshnis offered to confer with Ms. Hope and schedule further discussion at the September 2 or 16 meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 16. LIQUOR/RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LICENSE REVIEW PROCESS Council President Buckshnis explained this removes the Council from the review process for liquor/recreational marijuana licenses and makes it an administrative process. Requiring approval by the Council has the potential to slow the process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised this was reviewed Public Safety & Personnel Committee and she requested it be presented to the Council primarily for notification. Lists of liquor license renewals are approved on the Consent Agenda; this would change that to an administrative process. City Clerk Scott Passey explained the proposal is to take the Council out of the review process for practical reasons. Most cities handle it administratively and do not require Council approval due to the tight timeline on license applications. In the past the Council has approved the lists of renewals. The City also receives sporadic individual license applications; it would be difficult to obtain Council approval within the required timeline. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A CODE AMENDMENT TO TAKE THE CITY COUNCIL OUT OF THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR LIQUOR AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LICENSES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION PROCESS Councilmember Mesaros recalled when this was discussed at the August 4 meeting, two suggestions were made, 1) to include the past Council President along with current Council President in the formal evaluation process which he added, and 2) having the Council approve the standards of performance which will be developed after the performance review. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION PROCESS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 25 of 212 18. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014 Due the late hour, this item was rescheduled to next week’s Council meeting. 19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported it had been a great pleasure to have a delegation from Hekinan in Edmonds the past ten days. He acknowledged the work of the Sister City Commission and thanked his Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave and Sister City Commissioner Iyoko Okano who were instrumental in the success of the program. He relayed that a student boarding the bus to the airport mentioned they could not find their passport. The bus left with the students; Ms. LaFave went to the host family’s house, found the passport and met the student at the airport with the passport. He summarized it was a marvelous experience and he was pleased it was great success. 20. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis reported the last concert in the park is this Sunday. Councilmember Johnson invited volunteers to the 2nd Annual Volunteer Appreciation Picnic on Sunday from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. followed by the concert. She requested volunteers RSVP to Ms. Spellman. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she had a great time at the Taste of Edmonds. She thanked the organizers and expressed her appreciation for the neighbors who tolerated the noise and people. Councilmember Petso thanked the City Clerk and the Council for accommodating her late arrival. 21. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 22. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 23. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Packet Page 26 of 212    AM-7085     5. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Lori Palmer Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #210131 through #210234 dated August 21, 2014 for $911,302.63. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61145 through #61160 and #61166 for $478,462.20, benefit checks #61161 through #61165 for $10,005.57 and wire payments for $358,125.50 for the period of August 1, 2014 through August 15, 2014. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Attachments Claim cks 08-21-14 Payroll Summary 08-20-14 Payroll Benefits 08-20-14 Project Numbers 08-20-14 Payroll Summary Reissue 08-20-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/21/2014 08:01 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/21/2014 08:12 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/21/2014 08:27 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/21/2014 08:27 AM Form Started By: Lori Palmer Started On: 08/20/2014 03:18 PM Final Approval Date: 08/21/2014  Packet Page 27 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210131 8/21/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 337029 PARKS PEST SERVICE - FAC PARKS PEST SERVICE - FAC 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 206.96 PARKS PEST SERVICE338848 CIVIC FIELD PEST SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 206.96 Total :413.92 210132 8/21/2014 073054 ACF WEST INC I0189589 FAC - Site Drain 180 Sheet Drain 4'x50' FAC - Site Drain 180 Sheet Drain 4'x50' 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 125.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.88 Total :136.88 210133 8/21/2014 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 7707 PARKS MAINT BACK FLOW TESTS PARKS MAINT BACK FLOW TESTS - FISHING 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 60.00 Total :60.00 210134 8/21/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9542 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 197,136.80 Total :197,136.80 210135 8/21/2014 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 72263 PARKS MAINT SEAVIEW PARK ARBORIST SERVIC ARBORIST SERVICES SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 865.00 Total :865.00 210136 8/21/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987568726 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 34.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.27 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :37.742101368/21/2014 069751 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 210137 8/21/2014 069120 AST CAPITAL TRUST COMPANY n3177b1 08-15-14 MEBT August 15th MEBT Contribution 811.000.231.520 82,832.30 Total :82,832.30 210138 8/21/2014 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 93233-0005 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY Cooling system rental - 3rd week 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 295.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 28.03 Total :323.03 210139 8/21/2014 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC I004445 PS - VAV Tux Controller PS - VAV Tux Controller 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2,437.20 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 232.29 Total :2,677.49 210140 8/21/2014 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 79738 Unit 379 - Replace Patrol Graphics Unit 379 - Replace Patrol Graphics 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 535.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 50.83 Unit 681 - Replace Patrol Car Graphics79768 Unit 681 - Replace Patrol Car Graphics 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 650.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 61.75 Total :1,297.58 210141 8/21/2014 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 83288 SENIOR SOFTBALL TROPHY ENGRAVING 2014 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210141 8/21/2014 (Continued)001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC SENIOR SOFTBALL TROPHY ENGRAVING 2014 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 1.14 SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE TROPHIES83314 SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE TROPHIES 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 157.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 14.97 Total :185.61 210142 8/21/2014 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Sept 2014 AWC SEPTEMBER 2014 AWC Sept 2014 AWC premiums 811.000.231.510 61,288.13 Total :61,288.13 210143 8/21/2014 074976 BEACON PLUMBING & MECHANICAL 112737 FAC Sewer Repairs FAC Sewer Repairs 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 7,542.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 716.49 Total :8,258.49 210144 8/21/2014 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 585 Users Conference Sept. 2 & 3 for Rob Users Conference Sept. 2 & 3 for Rob 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 300.00 Total :300.00 210145 8/21/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0782472-IN Fleet Auto Propane 325.3 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 325.3 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 596.32 Fleet Auto Propane 380.7 Gal0783017-IN Fleet Auto Propane 380.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 696.42 Total :1,292.74 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210146 8/21/2014 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 8922 E1GA/E3GA/E4JA - SERVICES THRU JULY 2014 E1GA/E3GA/E4JA - Services thru July 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 24,110.75 E1GA/E3GA/E4JA - Services thru July 2014 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 985.00 Total :25,095.75 210147 8/21/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 79029 INV#79029 - EDMONDS PD - BULBS SL20X REPLACEMENT BULBS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 79.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 7.58 INV 85656 EDMONDS PD - GREENMUN85656 WOOL UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 216.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.52 Total :323.90 210148 8/21/2014 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &062172 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 320.00 Total :320.00 210149 8/21/2014 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON 18559 CREATE A ZOO 18559 CREATE A ZOO INSTRUCTOR FEE 18559 CREATE A ZOO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 252.00 Total :252.00 210150 8/21/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14076759 Lease for Council Office Printer/Copier Lease for Council Office Printer/Copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 INV 14076763 CUST 572105 EDMONDS PD14076763 COPIER CONTRACT CHARGE 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 B/W METER USE 7/31/14 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210150 8/21/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 5.90 COLOR METER USE 7/31/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 64.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 61.90 CITY CLERK COPIER LEASE14076764 Lease City Clerk Copier 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 PARKS AND REC IRC505114076765 PARKS AND REC IRC5051 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE14076766 Recept. desk copier lease 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 PARKS AND REC IRC1030IF14076769 PARKS AND REC IRC1030IF 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 CANON COPIER CHARGES14081371 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210150 8/21/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES PARKS AND REC IRC1030IF14081375 PARKS AND REC IRC1030IF 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 36.16 Total :1,891.85 210151 8/21/2014 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 33711 25, 30 & 35 year employee service awards 25, 30 & 35 year employee service awards 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 207.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 19.71 Total :227.21 210152 8/21/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9429007795 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 383.14 Storm Dump Fees9429020106 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 647.79 Roadway - Asphalt9429033117 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 520.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 49.41 Storm Dump Fees9429041769 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 257.67 Storm Dump Fees9429071513 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 122.72 Storm Dump Fees9429071514 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 258.19 Total :2,238.92 210153 8/21/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD LPDAMT0011 INV LPDAMT0011 - HARBINSON - EDMONDS PD 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210153 8/21/2014 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD ADV. MOTOR OPERATOR COURSE - HARBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 55.00 Total :55.00 210154 8/21/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2690371 Fac Maint - Blocks, Bleach, Scouring Fac Maint - Blocks, Bleach, Scouring 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 494.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.99 Total :541.65 210155 8/21/2014 072278 CUETER, THAYER 080114 INV 080114 EDMONDS PD - LIMELIGHT #9056 MEDICAL/TREATMENT SERVICES FOR 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 40.80 BOARDING FOR "LIMELIGHT" IMPOUND #9056 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 950.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 94.12 Total :1,084.92 210156 8/21/2014 072700 CURVATURE LLC 476741 ASA 5510 APPLIANCE/ASA 5500 4-PORT ASA 5510 Appliance with SW, 4FE, 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,275.00 ASA 5500 4-PORT GIGABIT ETHERNET SSM 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,490.00 Freight 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 25.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 265.14 NETSURE-NBD477316 NETSURE-NBD ASA5510-BUN-K ~ 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 495.00 NETSURE-NBD SSM-4GE~ 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 450.00 9.5% Sales Tax 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210156 8/21/2014 (Continued)072700 CURVATURE LLC 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 89.78 Total :4,090.80 210157 8/21/2014 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 347160 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 8/2/14 E1AA.Services thru 8/2/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,818.11 Total :3,818.11 210158 8/21/2014 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2015-WAR045513 Stormwater - Municipal General Permit - Stormwater - Municipal General Permit - 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 13,416.00 Total :13,416.00 210159 8/21/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING 9/30/13 - 9/29/14 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 58.98 Total :58.98 210160 8/21/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3473 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 8/4 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 36.30 Total :36.30 210161 8/21/2014 074977 DINNIENE, JOHN CIVIC FIELD APPRAISE CIVIC FIELD APPRAISAL APPRAISAL OF CIVIC FIELD PROPERTY 126.000.39.594.75.61.00 8,700.00 Total :8,700.00 210162 8/21/2014 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2681568 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.39 FAC - Tarp2684703 FAC - Tarp 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.28 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210162 8/21/2014 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.64 Total :58.00 210163 8/21/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 38931 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES BEARINGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 49.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.74 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES39020 OIL FILTER, CLEAR FUEL FILTER, UNIT # 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.50 Yost Pool - V Belts39096 Yost Pool - V Belts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.32 Total :98.65 210164 8/21/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000313 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES S HOOKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.23 Library - Supplies552 Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.67 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.68 Total :33.53 210165 8/21/2014 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP ADR BRANTING 19063 ADRIENNE BRANTING 19063 KINDERMUSIK ADRIENNE BRANTING 19063 KINDERMUSIK 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210165 8/21/2014 (Continued)069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 ATLUA BRANTING 19063 KINDERMUSIKATLUA BRANTING 19063 ATLUA BRANTING 19063 KINDERMUSIK 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 PEL'EL BRANTING 19164 PRE SOCCERBRANTING 19164 PEL'EL BRANTING 19164 PRE SOCCER 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 61.00 Total :211.00 210166 8/21/2014 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2014-08-01 08/14 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 08/14 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 210167 8/21/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 PARKS 45 W DAYTON ST PARKS 45 W DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 584.07 PARKS 90 RAILROAD AVE1-00825 PARKS 90 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,176.88 PARKS 21 MAIN1-00875 PARKS 21 MAIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.55 PARKS 625 SUNSET AVE1-02125 PARKS 625 SUNSET AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.38 PARKS 290 MAIN ST1-03710 PARKS 290 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.63 PARKS 290 DAYTON ST1-03900 PARKS 290 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 124.03 PARKS 101 2ND AVE N1-05125 PARKS 101 2ND AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.50 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210167 8/21/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PARKS 102 W DAYTON ST1-05285 PARKS 102 W DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 PARKS 190 DAYTON ST1-05340 PARKS 190 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 129.99 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S1-05650 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S1-05675 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 896.98 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S1-05700 PARKS 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 189.58 PARKS 350 MAIN ST1-09650 PARKS 350 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 61.46 PARKS 390 DAYTON ST1-098800 PARKS 390 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 129.99 PARKS 490 MAIN ST1-10778 PARKS 490 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.40 PARKS 500 MAIN ST1-10780 PARKS 500 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.36 PARKS 439 5TH AVE S1-16130 PARKS 439 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 210.43 PARKS 500 DAYTON ST1-16300 PARKS 500 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 389.19 PARKS 118 5TH AVE N1-16420 PARKS 118 5TH AVE N 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210167 8/21/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.50 PARKS 150 5TH AVE N1-16450 PARKS 150 5TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 231.83 PARKS 575 MAIN ST1-16630 PARKS 575 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 261.08 PARKS 590 DAYTON ST1-17475 PARKS 590 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 210.43 PARKS 610 PINE ST1-19950 PARKS 610 PINE ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 69.23 PARKS 1141 9TH AVE S1-36255 PARKS 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 Total :5,222.09 210168 8/21/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 102923 Additional Copies Council Office Additional Copies Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 11.28 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1030103085 1 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1030 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 43.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 4.12 Additional images Council Office103087 1 Additional images Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 15.93 Total :74.65 210169 8/21/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH579892 Disability Board Citizen At Large 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210169 8/21/2014 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Disability Board Citizen At Large 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 199.52 E1CA.SEPA ADVERTISEMENTEDH580000 E1CA.SEPA Advertisement 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 55.04 5-YR STORMWATER MAINT. PROJECT - SEPA ADEDH5802227 5-Year Stormwater Maint Project - SEPA 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 51.60 Valerie Arvon/PLN20140026 legal ads.EDH580671 Valerie Arvon/PLN20140026 legal ads. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 55.04 Total :361.20 210170 8/21/2014 074430 FAST WATER HEATER BLD20140782 Address not in the City limits. Address not in the City limits. 001.000.257.620 75.00 Total :75.00 210171 8/21/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU32966 Storm - Safety glasses Storm - Safety glasses 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 53.52 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.08 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU33158 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: PIN BLT DR, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.02 Total :128.04 210172 8/21/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0430240 Meter Inventory - M-METER-01-010 #2025 Meter Inventory - M-METER-01-010 #2025 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,478.00 M-METER-0.625-010 #2064 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,728.70 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210172 8/21/2014 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 494.64 Total :5,701.34 210173 8/21/2014 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10002580 Supplement to previous invoice for Supplement to previous invoice for 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 19.00 Total :19.00 210174 8/21/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.67 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.87 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 79.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 66.63 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 66.63 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 88.84 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 57.29 Total :435.92 210175 8/21/2014 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 30379 E3GA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2014 E3GA.Services thru July 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,040.00 E3GA.SERVICES THRU JULY 201430380 E3GA.Services thru July 2014 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210175 8/21/2014 (Continued)074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,405.00 Total :4,445.00 210176 8/21/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9515306935 PARKS MAINT YOST POOL HAND DRYERS YOST POOL HAND DRYERS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,332.12 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 126.55 Total :1,458.67 210177 8/21/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 8962023 Water Quality - Parts for CL2 Analyzer Water Quality - Parts for CL2 Analyzer 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 175.35 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.07 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.28 Total :210.70 210178 8/21/2014 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 25559 E2AC.SERVICES THRU 7/31/14 E2AC.Services thru 7/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 187.56 Total :187.56 210179 8/21/2014 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 20889 INV 20889 07-30-14 EDMONDS PD - MCINTYRE ANNUAL DIVE PHYSICAL - MCINTYRE 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 335.00 Total :335.00 210180 8/21/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25217 E1GA.SERVICES THRU 7/26/14 E1GA.Services thru 7/26/14 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,712.96 E4HA.TO 14-01.SERVIECS THRU 7/26/1425264 E4HA.TO 14-01.Services thru 7/26/14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3,880.19 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :5,593.152101808/21/2014 060165 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 210181 8/21/2014 070168 IAPE INC 2014 MANDEVILLE 2014 MEMBERSHIP - MANDEVILLE - EDMONDS P 2014 MEMBERSHIP - MANDEVILLE 001.000.41.521.80.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 210182 8/21/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2496969 Misc. office supplies including Misc. office supplies including 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 230.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 21.91 Total :252.53 210183 8/21/2014 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12256665 C/A 768328 PR 1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 910.37 Tourism Toll Free Lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 7.68 Econ Development Toll Free Lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 7.40 Total :925.45 210184 8/21/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 506387 FAC - Batteries for Floor Scrubber FAC - Batteries for Floor Scrubber 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 189.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.04 Total :207.94 210185 8/21/2014 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 18479 KINDERMUSIK 18479 KINDERMUSIK SPRING/SUMMER INSTRUCT 18479 KINDERMUSIK SPRING/SUMMER 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 147.95 18549 KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP INSTRUCT18549 KINDERMUSIK 18549 KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 311.85 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :459.802101858/21/2014 074888 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 210186 8/21/2014 062477 KEEP POSTED 18157 DISTRIBUTION OF BIRD FEST POSTERS Distribution of Bird Fest Posters 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 312.00 Total :312.00 210187 8/21/2014 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20175 expenses 06-14 EXPENSES 06-14 Reimbursement for expenses 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 5,172.67 Total :5,172.67 210188 8/21/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 194245 Water Supplies Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 99.95 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.50 Street - Hedge Trimmer195140 Street - Hedge Trimmer 111.000.68.542.71.35.00 483.11 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.35.00 45.90 Street - Gatorline195263 Street - Gatorline 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 37.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.60 Total :679.96 210189 8/21/2014 074979 MITEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC 91860346 PHONE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MiCollab Base Software 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 616.90 MiCooab NPUM MiVBus Mailbox Licenses X 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 5,487.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 58.61 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210189 8/21/2014 (Continued)074979 MITEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 521.27 PHONE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT91860802 MXE III Controller 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 5,580.00 3300 160G Sata HDD 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 360.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 564.30 Total :13,188.08 210190 8/21/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0382541-IN Storm - Sensor Storm - Sensor 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 110.00 Freight 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 12.60 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 11.65 Total :134.25 210191 8/21/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3341669 LEOFF 1 medical premiums LEOFF 1 medical premiums 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,373.53 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,011.67 Total :10,385.20 210192 8/21/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0526643-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 40.56 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 3.86 Total :44.42 210193 8/21/2014 074869 NOLTON, DANIKA 8/26/14 HMP ROCKLYN 8/26/14 HMP ROCKLYN ROAD 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210193 8/21/2014 (Continued)074869 NOLTON, DANIKA 8/26/14 HMP ROCKLYN ROAD 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 210194 8/21/2014 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1030070 Unit 21 - Hydraulic Valve Install Unit 21 - Hydraulic Valve Install 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,724.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 163.78 Total :1,887.78 210195 8/21/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-951123 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 591.18 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET1-975283 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET1-987898 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 206.58 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET1-989487 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET1-990616 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET1-990617 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET1-991500 MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 609.05 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET1-991502 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,180.402101958/21/2014 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 210196 8/21/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 049889 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -7.79 Original Inv. 049899 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -82.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES049899 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 82.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 7.79 INV 067645 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS PD067645 6 DOZEN FLEXGRIP RETRACT. PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 70.92 1 DOZEN STENO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.87 OFFICE SUPPLIES969063 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 148.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES969400 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 37.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 3.59 INV#975735 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD975735 EXPO DRY ERASE MARKERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.87 WHITE ADRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.84 PATROL MEMO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210196 8/21/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC LEGAL PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.68 Total :359.64 210197 8/21/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 11004 YOST POOL SUPPLIES POOL SUPPLIES: ACID MAGIC, SODIUM 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 573.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 54.46 Total :627.71 210198 8/21/2014 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1649636 Unit 36 - Supplies Unit 36 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.01 Svc Fee 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.19 Unit 25 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.48 Total :19.68 210199 8/21/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 177747 Roadway - Topsoil Roadway - Topsoil 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 102.00 Envi & Fuel Fees 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.70 Storm Dump Fees178226 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Street - Dump Fees178244 Street - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210199 8/21/2014 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Storm Dump Fees178258 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees178365 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees178383 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Total :615.70 210200 8/21/2014 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.3753-8 FAC - Paint FAC - Paint 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18 FAC - Paint Supplies3944-3 FAC - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 126.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.04 Total :163.95 210201 8/21/2014 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC INV 104744 INV 104744 EDMONDS PD CASE 14-3360 TOW 1997 MERCEDES VIN **864 TO EDMONDS 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total :173.01 210202 8/21/2014 008350 PETTY CASH PC 08/18/2014 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH 08/18/2014 SQUISH AND CHOPSTICKS FOR HEKINAN DAY 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.13 DISH SOAP, PAPER AIRPLANE KIT, PUTTY 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.38 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210202 8/21/2014 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH KEY CHAIN RINGS FOR CRAFTS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 1.96 A B C BEADS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 5.25 CUPS AND PLATES TO MAKE STAMP/STENCIL 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.80 FABRIC TO MAKE CAPES & CRAFT BEADS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 19.09 FABRIC & GEL GLUE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 17.99 Total :56.60 210203 8/21/2014 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730AU14 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 07/30 to 08/30 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26 Total :786.86 210204 8/21/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC E895814 Fac Maint - Lock Fac Maint - Lock 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.82 Total :44.00 210205 8/21/2014 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 18241 LEGO CAMP 18241 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTOR FEE 18241 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,560.00 18247 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTOR FEE18247 LEGO CAMPS 18247 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 3,120.00 Total :4,680.00 210206 8/21/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000147774 MARKER - BULEN 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210206 8/21/2014 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC MARKER - BULEN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 349.00 Total :349.00 210207 8/21/2014 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 92959 INV#92959 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2001 HONDA CIVIC #745XYI 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 INV 92987 EDMONDS PD CASE 14-341192987 TOW HARLEY M/C 961288 TO EDMONDS PD - 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 INV 93354 EDMONDS PD CASE 14-334093354 TOW 1998 SUBARU APZ5772 TO EDMONDS PD - 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total :519.03 210208 8/21/2014 070042 RICOH USA INC 92973962 Rent on Engineering color copier, Rent on Engineering color copier, 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 Rent on the large copier 907EX for92973964 Rent on the large copier 907EX for 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total :1,270.48 210209 8/21/2014 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-000272 Unit 106 - Supplies Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.38 Total :36.38 210210 8/21/2014 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 30675 PARKS & REC CRAZE F/W 2014 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210210 8/21/2014 (Continued)069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC PARKS & REC CRAZE F/W 2014 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 1,000.00 PARKS & REC CRAZE F/W 2014 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 5,066.16 Total :6,066.16 210211 8/21/2014 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 613688 INV 613688 EDMONDS PD 5 CASES .40 CAL LAWMAN BRASS CLEANFIRE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,041.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 98.96 INV 613689 EDMONDS PD613689 10 CASES .40 CAL LAWMAN BRASS CLEANFIRE 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 2,083.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 197.92 Total :3,421.98 210212 8/21/2014 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 265 ANDY POOL MAINT TRAINING - ANDY POOL MAINT TRAINING - ANDY 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 354.40 POOL MAINT TRAINING - JESSE265 JESSE POOL MAINT TRAINING - JESSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 354.40 Total :708.80 210213 8/21/2014 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 14-3217 Unit 106 - High Pressure Vac Truck Gun Unit 106 - High Pressure Vac Truck Gun 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 595.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.53 Sewer - Svc Kit14-3220 Sewer - Svc Kit 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 59.00 9.5% Sales Tax 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210213 8/21/2014 (Continued)067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.61 Total :716.14 210214 8/21/2014 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 260979 Unit 94 - Part Unit 94 - Part 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 511.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 48.60 Unit 36 - Parts261075 Unit 36 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.58 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.72 Total :568.53 210215 8/21/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 1 E3GA.PMT 1 THRU 7/25/14 E3GA.Pmt 1 thru 7/25/14 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 297,611.23 Total :297,611.23 210216 8/21/2014 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0345927 Sewer - Jute Netting Supplies Sewer - Jute Netting Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 119.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.40 Total :131.39 210217 8/21/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,430.47 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,500.86 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210217 8/21/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 190.48 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.81 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,751.53 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 66.63 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 253.19 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 253.19 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 253.19 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 253.19 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 253.16 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,794.09 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,622.75 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION2025-4064-7 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 239.78 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :14,963.862102178/21/2014 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 210218 8/21/2014 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU Edm0714 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD JAN - JUNE 2014 Tourism promotion award January - June 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 210219 8/21/2014 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 38709 FS 20 - Service Call Repairs FS 20 - Service Call Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 665.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 63.19 Total :728.32 210220 8/21/2014 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L104328 AMONSEN/BAYLOR AUDIT SERVICES 07/14 Amonsen and Baylor Audit Services 001.000.39.519.90.51.00 395.24 Total :395.24 210221 8/21/2014 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002733561 INV 3002733561 CUST 6076358 MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 51.52 misc sales tax % 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 1.92 Total :53.44 210222 8/21/2014 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 18375 BEACH CAMP 18375 BEACH CAMP INSTRUCTOR FEE 18375 BEACH CAMP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,577.50 Total :12,577.50 210223 8/21/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11405171 Roadway - Fluorescent Paint Roadway - Fluorescent Paint 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 56.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 5.40 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :62.202102238/21/2014 040917 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 210224 8/21/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50822215 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 7/25/14 E3FC.Services thru 7/25/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 33,315.52 E4FB.SERVICES THRU 6/30/1450825548 E4FB.Services thru 6/30/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 21,761.24 Total :55,076.76 210225 8/21/2014 068105 THORSON BARNETT & MCDONALD PC 68555 Legal services Legal services 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 992.00 Legal services68556 Legal services 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 682.00 Total :1,674.00 210226 8/21/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3001133166 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 88.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 8.41 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM3001133167 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 337.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.09 Total :466.78 210227 8/21/2014 062693 US BANK 3405 Best Buy - Pantronics for City Cell Best Buy - Pantronics for City Cell 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 142.34 Guardian Sec - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 First Responder Syst - Smart Pad 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210227 8/21/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 61.00 Amazon - Texas Amer - Corrective Safety 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.80 PW - Ice Machine Replacement3439 PW - Ice Machine Replacement 421.000.74.534.20.35.00 315.98 PW - Ice Machine Replacement 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 315.98 PW - Ice Machine Replacement 422.000.72.531.40.35.00 315.98 PW - Ice Machine Replacement 111.000.68.542.31.35.00 315.98 PW - Ice Machine Replacement 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 315.96 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD3462 Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 234.00 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 148.50 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 148.50 PW - Office Stamps3546 PW - Office Stamps 001.000.65.518.20.49.00 49.00 Total :2,451.02 210228 8/21/2014 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 4070123 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 92.83 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 92.83 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 95.64 Total :281.30 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210229 8/21/2014 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 1 E3GA.RET 1.WAF 316-400163-2 E3GA.Ret 1.WAF 316-400163-2 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 14,324.70 Total :14,324.70 210230 8/21/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6385 BUSINESS CARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEV DIRECTOR Business Cards-Patrick Doherty250-00320 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 4.28 PARKS AND REC ENVELOPES6395 PARKS AND REC WINDOW ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 108.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 10.34 Total :168.54 210231 8/21/2014 074874 WHEELER, CHRISTINE 08/24/14 SECOND HAND 08/24/14 SECOND HAND NEWZ CITY PARK CONC 08/24/14 SECOND HAND NEWZ CITY PARK 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 600.00 Total :600.00 210232 8/21/2014 045565 WSPCA 2014 FALL SEMINAR 2014 FALL SEMINAR - ROBINSON & HOBBS - E FALL SEMINAR REGISTRATION 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 325.00 Total :325.00 210233 8/21/2014 069600 YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT 9-3-14 COMPLEX SEARCH WARRANTS - MEHL - EDMONDS COMPLEX SEARCH WARRANTS - MEHL~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 40.00 Total :40.00 210234 8/21/2014 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0171048 Traffic- Sign Blanks 24x8 Alum Traffic- Sign Blanks 24x8 Alum 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 82.20 Freight 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 212 08/20/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 3:12:09PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210234 8/21/2014 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.60 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.82 Total :101.62 Bank total :911,302.63104 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 911,302.63Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report104 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 212 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 671 (08/01/2014 to 08/15/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description -ed2 0.00 -71.28Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS 111 88.25 0.00NO PAY LEAVEABSENT 120 88.00 2,577.50SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK 121 288.10 9,546.45SICK LEAVESICK 122 2,462.75 88,505.04VACATIONVACATION 123 75.75 2,631.92HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY 124 29.00 783.78FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY 125 236.75 9,008.92COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS 130 4.00 119.61Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS 131 10.00 389.39MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY 150 123.00 4,372.28Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS 155 22.76 959.15COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS 160 49.00 2,694.00MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION 190 16,389.50 523,191.11REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS 191 4.00 2,267.58FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS 210 14.75 479.26OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS 215 48.00 2,443.79WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS 216 15.00 1,317.72STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS 220 468.75 29,565.80OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS 225 14.25 944.94OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS 411 0.00 656.26SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 600 0.00 549.17RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY 602 48.00 0.00ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS 604 120.00 0.00ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS 606 9.00 0.00ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS 900 -3.30 0.00ACCRUED VACATIONVACATION acc 0.00 23.56ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUS acs 0.00 161.90ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUS boc 0.00 81.17BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUS cell 0.00 -60.96Repayment AgreementREGULAR HOURS colre 0.00 135.29Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUS cpl 0.00 140.18TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUS crt 0.00 512.32CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUS 08/19/2014 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 60 of 212 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 671 (08/01/2014 to 08/15/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description det 0.00 97.80DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUS det4 0.00 942.14Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUS ed1 0.00 751.43EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAY ed2 0.00 850.86EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAY ed3 0.00 4,351.56EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAY fmla 51.82 0.00FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENT fmls 44.07 1,285.47FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICK fmlv 24.86 727.73Family Medical Leave VacationVACATION k9 0.00 198.25K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUS lg1 0.00 1,813.42LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY lg2 0.00 1,156.27LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAY lg3 0.00 4,943.79LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAY lg4 0.00 331.43Longevity 1%LONGEVITY lg5 0.00 66.98Longevity 3%LONGEVITY lg6 0.00 323.80Longevity .5%LONGEVITY lg7 0.00 725.30Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITY mtc 0.00 195.60MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUS ooc 0.00 107.655% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS pds 0.00 44.66Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUS phy 0.00 1,493.78PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUS prof 0.00 149.96PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUS sdp 0.00 494.56SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUS sgt 0.00 149.96ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUS traf 0.00 210.27TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUS Total Net Pay:$478,290.06 $705,338.52 20,726.06 08/19/2014 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 61 of 212 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 671 - 08/01/2014 to 08/15/2014 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61161 08/20/2014 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,749.50 0.00 61162 08/20/2014 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00 61163 08/20/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 710.76 0.00 61164 08/20/2014 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,223.00 0.00 61165 08/20/2014 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,885.81 0.00 10,005.57 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2111 08/20/2014 uhc UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO 236,258.88 0.00 2114 08/20/2014 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,055.00 0.00 2115 08/20/2014 us US BANK 96,405.12 0.00 2118 08/20/2014 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,143.60 0.00 2119 08/20/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 164.40 0.00 2120 08/20/2014 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 98.50 0.00 358,125.50 0.00 368,131.07 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 18/19/2014 Packet Page 62 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 63 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 64 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 65 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 66 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 67 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 68 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 69 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 70 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 71 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES m013 E7FG Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 72 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 73 of 212 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB Revised 8/20/2014 Packet Page 74 of 212 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 715 (08/01/2014 to 08/15/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 18.00 0.00 SICK LEAVESICK121 9.00 304.33 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 53.00 1,792.43 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 12.00 570.34 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 2.00 95.06 Total Net Pay: $2,102.47 $2,762.1694.00 08/20/2014 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 75 of 212    AM-7081     5. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Karla L. Therriault (amount undetermined) and Mark and Carolyn Blackbourn ($9,462.31). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Karla L. Therriault 233 3rd Avenue South #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 (amount undetermined) Mark and Carolyn Blackbourn 9711 Lindsay Place Edmonds, WA 98020 ($9,462.31) Attachments Therriault Claim for Damages Blackbourn Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/21/2014 01:22 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/21/2014 01:39 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 08/20/2014 09:02 AM Final Approval Date: 08/21/2014  Packet Page 76 of 212 Packet Page 77 of 212 Packet Page 78 of 212 Packet Page 79 of 212 Packet Page 80 of 212 Packet Page 81 of 212 Packet Page 82 of 212 Packet Page 83 of 212 Packet Page 84 of 212 Packet Page 85 of 212 Packet Page 86 of 212 Packet Page 87 of 212 Packet Page 88 of 212 Packet Page 89 of 212 Packet Page 90 of 212 Packet Page 91 of 212 Packet Page 92 of 212 Packet Page 93 of 212 Packet Page 94 of 212 Packet Page 95 of 212 Packet Page 96 of 212 Packet Page 97 of 212 Packet Page 98 of 212 Packet Page 99 of 212 Packet Page 100 of 212 Packet Page 101 of 212 Packet Page 102 of 212 Packet Page 103 of 212 Packet Page 104 of 212 Packet Page 105 of 212    AM-7082     5. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Confirmation of appointment of Michele Fellows to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Recommendation Please confirm Michele Fellow's appointment to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Previous Council Action Narrative The Edmonds Sister City Commission and Mayor Earling have interviewed Sister City Commission candidate Michele Fellows and are recommending her appointment to Position #8 on the ESCC. Attachments Fellows_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2014 12:01 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2014 01:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2014 01:53 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 08/20/2014 11:33 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2014  Packet Page 106 of 212 Packet Page 107 of 212    AM-7079     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Informational Presentation on Affordable Housing by Mark Smith, Executive Director Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative The Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit. Its mission is to provide strategic leadership in crafting program and policy solutions to affordable housing challenges in Snohomish County. Mark Smith is the Executive Director of the Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County and a former Lynnwood City Councilmember. He is here tonight to discuss the housing need in Snohomish County, including some Edmonds specific information. He also will provide some information as to what specific actions cities might take to help facilitate the development of affordable housing to meet the need in their own community. His presentation will also include the "definition" of affordable housing and provide some examples of "good" affordable housing that will help dispel the negative images often associated with it.   Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2014 11:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2014 11:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2014 11:41 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/18/2014 08:55 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2014  Packet Page 108 of 212    AM-7086     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Human Resources Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Municipal Court Judge Compensation Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation Recommendation: 1. Council be briefed on the Washington Courts salary increase for municipal court judges, and consider this in the budget process for 2015.  2. Council consider and approve an increase in FTE for the Municipal Judge position, from .55 FTE to .75FTE Previous Council Action None Narrative Background and Summary 1. In 2006, the City Council required that the position of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge become an elected position. This then brought it under the scope of the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. It also qualified the City to receive reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds, the judicial position has to be paid at a pro-rated salary equal to 95% of the salary for a District Court Judge. The Municipal Judge position is currently a part time (.55 FTE) position.  The Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials last filing with the City was May 1, 2012  (see Attachment 1). The Commission recommended that an appropriate increase be provided, if needed in 2013 and/or 2014 to maintain the 95% requirement to continue receiving court improvement account funds from the State. Attachment 2 is a letter from Washington Courts Administrative Office, outlining the salary to begin September 1, 2014.  The Washington Courts have updated this salary to be $148,881 per year, or 12,407 per month. Ninety five percent of the new annual amount equates to $11,786 per month. Currently, we compensate the Judge for a .55 FTE of $11,443 per month, or $6293.00 per month. This represents a 3% increase from the current amount of compensation for the Municipal Court Judge.  Packet Page 109 of 212 The new amount is equal to an addition of $189 per month, or $757 for the period covering September 1, 2014 – December 31st, 2014.  This was not calculated into the current budget, however, the court can assume this amount in the currently adopted budget authority.  Because this was filed by the Citizen’s Commission and effective for 2013-2014, there is no need for Council action. It is recommended that the Council consider and approve continuing this 3% increase beginning in January 2015. This amount will be built into the Mayor’s 2015 budget and be subject to Council approval as part of the budget process.  It is also recommended the Council consider any other increases mandated by the State in future years in order to be eligible for the Court Improvement funds.   2. During the 2012 process, the Municipal Judge presented information requesting that the Commission consider an increase in the FTE. After consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that the FTE allocation is outside of the scope of the Commission, and should be referred to the Mayor for consideration and the Council for approval. The Judge subsequently discussed this concern and request with the Mayor. Attachment 3 is a comparison table of the Greater Puget Sound Municipal Courts, the population each court serves, the annual caseload and percentage of FTE/annual hours allocated for Judicial positions. In addition, an analysis of cases based on 1 FTE, and the amount of hours per each case available for each court helps to provide a like comparison across jurisdictions.  Attachment 4 is a table that provides a summary of the comparison data, including the current FTE and the proposed FTE for Edmonds Municipal Judge.  For additional information, Attachment 5  is the memo that was provided by the Judge to the Citizen's Commission. After thorough research and analysis, the Mayor is recommending consideration of an increase in hours for the Municipal Court Judge at .75 FTE.  Although this still appears lower than comparison jurisdictions, the Mayor would like to implement and evaluate this before recommending a higher FTE.  The fiscal impact of this would be $2358 per month ( after the 3% is added in from item 1 above), or $9432 for the remainder of the year. The annual impact would be $28,296 and would need to be addressed in the 2015 budget for next year. If Council approves, staff would bring forward a budget amendment. Additional Consideration: It also should be noted that because of the recent change in the caseloads for Public Defenders, this could have an impact on the amount of cases that are brought forward for court action. At this time, the Judge has not seen a rise in cases. However, once the Public Defender caseloads take full effect, the City could experience a need to increase the capacity of the Court in the future.  In addition, if the City increases the number of police officers, this will have a direct impact on the increase in the number of cases for the courts.  Packet Page 110 of 212 Attachments 2012 Citizen's Commission Filing Washington Courts Letter to City Municipal Court Judge Comparisons Comparison Summary Table Judges Memo Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/21/2014 11:54 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/21/2014 11:57 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/21/2014 12:01 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/21/2014 09:53 AM Final Approval Date: 08/21/2014  Packet Page 111 of 212 Brent Hunter, Co-Chair, Eric Radcliffe, Co-Chair Alan Doman, Lisa Gallucci, Norma Middleton, Dilys Rosales, Debbie Rosenfelt DATE: April 30, 2012 TO: Edmonds’ City Council FROM: Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials RE: 2013 Commission’s Compensation Recommendation for Elected Officials PROCESS OVERVIEW The Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials completed its work and filed its schedule of recommendations with the City Clerk by the first Monday in May (May 1) as required under Edmonds City Code 10.80. In preparing the following schedule of recommendations, the Commission reviewed a considerable amount of material including: Role and scope of Commission responsibility under Edmonds City Code 10.80 Best practices and industry trends in total compensation – salary and benefits Salaries and benefits for Council Members, City Manager/Mayor positions, and Municipal Court Judges in the 12 comparable cities adopted recently by Council. Council Members’ and Mayoral duties and responsibilities Council minutes on previous Commission recommendations Historical salary and benefit information for the positions of Council Member, Mayor, and Municipal Court Judge Current economic conditions and projected expenses and revenue for the City of Edmonds for 2013 and 2014 In addition to the above research, and in an effort to make recommendations responsive to the needs of elected officials, the Commission interviewed both current and former elected officials. The results of these interviews were very informative, and helped shape the Commission’s recommendation. We would like to express our appreciation for their willingness to share information with us and their candor. The Commission also held two public hearings (March 26 and April 3) in which members of the public were given an opportunity to participate in this process. All meetings of the Commission were advertised in the local papers, and on the City website to allow a further opportunity for public comment and participation. CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Packet Page 112 of 212 2 The Commission approached its work under the scope identified in City Code Chapter 10.80 as follows: “It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to base the compensation of elected officials on realistic standards so that elected officials of the City may be compensated according to the duties of their offices, and so that citizens of the highest quality may be attracted to public service. “ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JUDICIAL POSITION Background and Summary In 2006, the City Council required that the position of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge become an elected position which brought it under the scope of the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. With the position being elected, it qualified the City to receive reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds, the judicial position has to be paid at a pro-rated salary equal to 95% of the salary for a District Court Judge. The Municipal Judge position is currently a part time (.55 FTE) position. The Municipal Judge presented information requesting that the Commission consider an increase in the FTE. After consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that FTE allocation is outside of the scope of the Commission. A Commissioner advised the Municipal Judge that the FTE issue is outside of our scope and should be requested from Council. We are referring this issue to the City Council for further review. Recommendation: In order for the Edmonds Municipal Court to qualify for court improvement account funds from the State, the Citzens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials recommends that the compensation for the City of Edmonds’ Municipal Court Judge be maintained at 95% of that of a District Court Judge in compliance with State requirements. With no approved increase to District Court Judge compensation by the State Salary Commission for 2012, the Edmonds’ Citizens’ Commission recommends no increase in 2013 for the position of Municipal Judge. The Commission further recommends that an appropriate increase be provided, if needed in 2013 and/or 2014 to maintain the 95% requirement to continue receiving court improvement account funds from the State. The Municipal Court Judge is currently eligible for the same benefit package available to full time non represented employees. The Commission recommends no change. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR Background and Summary: The Mayor’s current compensation consists of a monthly salary of $9,434 and a health benefit plan paid by the City at 90%, a contribution to the Public Employees Retirement System ( PERS), as well as life insurance and a long term disability insurance benefit. Recommendations: The Commission is not recommending a base salary increase for 2013-2014. We understand there may be a future cost of living increase (COLA) for non represented employees in 2013 and/or 2014. If the non represented employees receive a COLA, we recommend the Mayor receive the same percentage increase as non represented employees on the same effective date. Packet Page 113 of 212 3 The Commission recommends the benefits package for the position of Mayor remain the same. However, the Commission recommends that any future change to the health care benefits package for non represented employees (either plan or contribution rate) also apply to the Mayor. The health care benefits package for Mayor currently mirrors that of non represented employees. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL Background and Summary: The current salary for all Council Members includes a base wage of $600 per month ($7,200 annually) and additional meeting pay of $50 per meeting up to a maximum of eight meetings per month (an additional $4,800 annually). In addition, Council members are eligible for a 90% paid premium for health care benefits. Options: After a thorough analysis, the Commission developed multiple options for 2013-2014. Option #1 Continue with the same compensation plan, including base pay, meeting pay, and 90% premium pay for a health insurance plan. Continue a $200 monthly salary differential for the Council President. Option #2A Combine the current base pay, $600, with the current health care benefits contribution, $567, into a cafeteria plan ( lump sum payment), for a total of $1167. Allow each Council member to receive this compensation in any combination of the following: salary contribution, paid health care premiums for themselves and/or family members, and/or contributions to a deferred compensation account. Continue to pay $50 per meeting for up to 8 meetings per month. Continue a $200 monthly salary differential for the Council President. Option #2B Combine all possible compensation into a lump sum, including maximum meeting pay ($400), current base pay ($600) and health insurance contribution from the city ($567), for a total of $1567 per Council member. Continue a $200 monthly salary differential for the Council Chair for a total of $1767 for the Council President. Allow each Council member to receive the full amount in any combination of the following: salary, paid health care premiums for themselves and/or family members, or contributions to a deferred compensation account. Recommendation The Commission unanimously recommends Option 2B. The other options are simply offered as alternatives if option 2B is not acceptable to Council. Option 2B provides the maximum flexibility possible for Council members to have personal choice and receive compensation in the form that is most important to them. This additional flexibility addresses many of the issues raised in our interviews with current and former elected officials. We recommend a flexible compensation system as a strategic approach to make running for office more attractive to people from diverse backgrounds and to help attract candidates to public service. The Commission is not recommending additional authorized salary and benefits amounts. The Commission recommends a more flexible approach to utilizing the existing authorized salary and benefit amounts. Packet Page 114 of 212 4 Option 2B will result in minimal increased costs. In this options, all Council Members would be compensated at the maximum meeting rate. Because the 2012 budget was developed on the average amount used by Council for meetings, it currently only represents 6 meetings per month per Council member. The budget impact for this recommendation is $100 per month per Council Member, but does not exceed the amount each Council member is already eligible for. The Commission recommends the benefits package for Council Members remain unchanged. However, the Commission recommends that any future change to the health care benefits package, (either plan, or contribution rate) for non represen ted employees also apply to the Council. The health care benefits package for Council Members currently mirrors that of non- represented employees. Impact The City’s legal advisor has stated that there does not appear to be any Washington law restricting a city or local government from implementing this type of compensation for elected officials, which is often referred to as a cafeteria plan. The Commission is recommending that this be effective starting January 1, 2013 for all seated Council members. There is minimal administrative work involved to make these changes. Payroll deductions are already in place for deferred compensation, health care premiums and salary. The full budget amount for 8 meetings per Councilmember per month will have to be figured back into the budget for 2013. CONCLUSION The Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials worked diligently on the issues of compensation for the three elected positions; Council, Mayor, and Municipal Court Judge. All Commission Members have appreciated the opportunity to serve the Edmonds community by participating in this process and look forward to serving again in the future. If any City Council member, Mayor, or Municipal Court Judge have any questions, would like further clarification, or would like to review any of the material the Commission used in the analysis, please contact Carrie Hite, Interim HR for follow up information. Citizens’ Commmision on Compensation of Elected Officials Brent Hunter, Co-Chair Eric Radcliffe, Co-Chair Alan Doman, Commissioner Lisa Gallucci, Commissioner Norma Middleton, Commissioner Dilys Rosales, Commissioner Debbie Rosenfelt, Commissioner Attachment: Copy of the 2012 Commission Recommendations PowerPoint Presentation Packet Page 115 of 212 Packet Page 116 of 212 CITY POP Caseload Caseload type % of FTE Annual Hours Hours per case JUDGE'S MONTHLY SALARY + benefits Cases based on 1 FTE Bothell 34,460 3,007 traffic, dui, other, parking 0.85 1768 0.59 $8,942 3,538 Bremerton 37,850 7,254 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 2 4160 0.57 $11,220 3,627 Des Moines 29,730 7,621 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 1 2080 0.27 $10,122 7,621 EDMONDS 39,800 7,809 infractions, parking 0.55 1144 0.15 $7,864 14,198 Edmonds Proposed 7,809 ,75 1560 0.20 $8,582 10,412 Federal Way 89,720 15,647 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 2 4160 0.27 $11,443 7,824 Issaquah 32,130 8,408 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 0.5 1040 0.12 $6,712 16,816 Kent 120,500 18,413 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 2 4160 0.23 $13,389 9,207 Kirkland 81,730 35,259 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 1 2080 0.06 $11,443 35,259 Lakewood 58,310 24,577 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 0.75 1560 0.06 $7,586 32,769 Lynnwood 35,960 31,295 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 1 2080 0.07 $15,300 31,295 Marysville 62,100 7,838 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 2 4160 0.53 $11,615 3,919 Olympia 48,480 3,435 infractions not including parking tickets 1 2080 0.61 $11,443 3,435 Puyallup 37,980 13,911 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 1 2080 0.15 $11,219 13,911 Renton 95,540 14,762 infractions, parking & photo enforcement 1.5 3120 0.21 $11,443 9,841 MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE 2014 Salary Survey Packet Page 117 of 212 Municipal Court Judge Compensation/Cases/FTE Summary August 26, 2014 Market Hours per case Caseload per FTE Salary per FTE Actual Salary Edmonds/Current .55FTE 0.15 14,198 $11,443.00 $6,293.65 Average 0.27 13,804 $11,443.00 Median 0.22 9524 $11,659.00 Edmonds Proposed .75 FTE 0.20 10,412 $11,443.00 $8,582.25 Proposed with 3% increase per State Salary Commission $11,786.00 $8,839.00 Packet Page 118 of 212 Packet Page 119 of 212 Packet Page 120 of 212    AM-7087     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Council Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding City Council Meeting Format Recommendation Previous Council Action N/A Narrative At the City Council retreat May 20, 2014 some Council members discussed how their meetings could be more efficient and effective. One idea was to hold two regular study sessions each month, where all Council members could learn about and discuss issues prior to any need for formal action. Using this concept will diminish the need for regular committee meetings as the entire Council would be informed of the details rather than one or two Council Members.  Also it will shorten lengthy meetings that generally occur after Committee night (August 19th, 2014 a good example) as items seem to be placed as a full Council review rather than use of the consent agenda so as to keep the public and other Council Members informed. This process will definitely provide greater transparency as all meetings will be available on line.  A proposal for this concept developed by the Administration and then edited by the Council President is outlined in a Question-and-Answer format  (attached). Should the study session’s concept be a consideration of the Council, an agenda item will be prepared at the next meeting to direct our Attorney to do the following: 1) Based on direction from the City Council about the intended meeting format, an ordinance could be drafted to amend the municipal code consistent with the proposal, state statutes, etc.  2) The Council should determine if the details of the Council Meeting format needs to be in the Municipal Code or if the details can be outlined in a policy that the Council can adopt later.  (In this regard, changes to format, such as starting time, the nature of the finance committee’s specific duties, the use of the consent agenda, etc., might be easier to adjust  at a future time.)  Attachments Packet Page 121 of 212 City Council Study Sessions Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 08/21/2014 10:39 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/21/2014 10:39 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/21/2014 11:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/21/2014 11:55 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/21/2014 09:57 AM Final Approval Date: 08/21/2014  Packet Page 122 of 212 1 Subject: Creating Efficiency through City Council ‘Study Sessions’ PROPOSAL For the Council to hold two study sessions and two business meetings each month, while removing the one work session1 and eliminating standing committee meetings, except for Finance. The study sessions and the business meetings would alternate with each other. How is a City Council study session different than a business meeting? A study session is a public meeting in which information is presented or discussed, but no vote takes place. A business meeting is a formal public meeting in which votes may be taken on specific items. Both types of meetings are open to the public and are based on agendas published in advance. What is the purpose of having study1 sessions? The purpose of study sessions is to learn about and discuss issues without needing to vote on them in the same meeting. The study session fosters:  More opportunities for reflection, questions, and dialogue  Consideration of most issues at two public meetings rather than one—the first, a study session; the second, a business meeting (at which a study item may be voted on)  An opportunity for all Council members and public to hear information, compared to typical committee meetings (which cannot have a quorum of Council members)  More time to think about complex issues before taking a vote on them  More productive and efficient business meetings because most items will already have been studied. Would one study session a month (rather than two sessions a month) be adequate? The City Council has many issues that need time for discussion and reflection. One study session a month does not seem adequate for the number and types of issues that the Council addresses. In addition, having only one study session puts more pressure on that single session to meet all the needs. After it is over, four more weeks go by before another study session is held. Do other cities hold two or more regular study (or work) sessions each month? Yes. Examples include Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Bremerton. 1 Sometimes the terms “study session” and “work session” are used interchangeably. However, the term “study session” is proposed at this time to indicate as clearly as possible that this type of public meeting would be for study and discussion purposes, not working to take a particular action. August 20, 2014 Packet Page 123 of 212 2 Why alternate study sessions with business meetings? An alternating schedule allows a business meeting to take place a week after each study session. When only a week has gone by, the issue is still fresh enough to not need all the information repeated and to be able to reach a decision on most issues. In addition, it would allow City Council members to get information about upcoming business items sooner, so members have more time to be fully informed before a decision needs to be made. Are study sessions only for items that will be voted on at the next business meeting (or another near- term meeting)? Study sessions are for any topic that is placed on the agenda, whether or not it needs future City action. While the major focus is on items that may be voted on at a later business meeting, additional agenda items can be scheduled—for example, a topic that’s of general interest but not necessarily expected for City action. Are only two regular business meetings a month enough? Many cities find that two regular business meetings a month are enough for taking action on City business. Such meetings can be efficient because the key agenda topics have been preceded by a study session. Of course, this approach requires advance planning on the part of staff so that non-routine topics can be scheduled for a study session plus a business meeting (if needed) to take action. Could some agenda items only be on a business session and not a study session? Yes, under this proposal, topics that are non-controversial—for example, recognition of an outstanding citizen—or simple or routine in nature—such as an item on the Consent Calendar— can be handled in a business meeting without a prior study session. Why not keep all existing City Council committees? Existing committees generally function to: (a) determine whether an item should be on the Consent Calendar of the regular agenda of a meeting; and (b) provide additional information for committee members about subjects that will move forward to the City Council as a whole. If study sessions are instituted to provide information on various topics to the whole Council, existing committees (other than Finance for some items) are not needed. Such meetings can therefore be eliminated, helping the City Council’s information and decision process be more efficient and open to all Council members. Without standing committees for most subjects, who would decide which items should go on a business meeting’s Consent Calendar? The Council President and Council President Pro Tem would decide whether to place an item on the Consent Agenda, using the following basic criteria:  The item is routine in nature  The item is simple and non-controversial  The item has no unbudgeted financial impact  The item has already been approved in the budget process; or  The City Council provided direction at a previous meeting to put the item on Consent. Packet Page 124 of 212 3 Furthermore, it is important to remember that ANY Council member could PULL an item from the Consent Calendar if she/he did not think it met the criteria or otherwise wanted separate consideration of the item. What would happen with City Council committee meetings under the above proposal? With the exception of Finance, which would meet 30 minutes before the Study Session, standing committees would not be needed. Instead, information that is now presented at committee meetings would be presented to the City Council as a whole during study sessions. This allows all Council members to hear about and discuss items of interest, rather than just the two Council members who comprise each committee. Under the proposal, if the Council finance committee remained, what would its duties be?  Review of expenditure payments, if necessary  Review of Public Facility District quarterly reports  Consideration or development of financial policies  Financial forecasting and budget forecasting Who would be on the finance committee? Under this proposal, the Council’s finance committee would consist of 3 members: the Council President plus two other members chosen by the Council President (i.e., Finance Committee selection as it is today). The Council President can appoint a Finance Chair, if desired. Each Council President (as selected each year) would have the opportunity to choose the willing Council members to serve on the finance committee. Would eliminating or reducing committees mean that City Council members have less knowledge of issues (“less touch”)? No, because the study sessions would allow all members, not just committee members, to learn about and discuss issues. What if there’s an “emergency” need for the Council to take action during a week in which no regular business meeting is scheduled? If something urgent and time-sensitive arose, an action item for it could still be placed on a study session agenda, unless the Edmonds Municipal Code is amended to preclude doing so. Alternatively “emergency business” could be handled by scheduling a special meeti ng for the emergency item. Most cities have found that such actions are rarely needed. What is the meeting schedule of other nearby cities? City Council Meeting Schedule for Nearby Cities City Business Meetings Work or study sessions Standing Committees Shoreline Each Monday Each Monday, following business items None Mukilteo 1st & 3rd Mondays 2nd Mondays + as needed Finance; Econ. Dev. Lynnwood 2nd & 4th Mondays 1st & 3rd Mondays + 3rd Wednesdays Finance (monthly) Mountlake T. 1st & 3rd Mondays Thursday ahead of each business meeting Finance (monthly) Packet Page 125 of 212 4 Should the two study sessions start at 6 pm or 7 pm? Either way can work. However, under this proposal, 7 pm would be the start time for study sessions (which would be preceded by the Finance Committee meeting at 6:30). What about room set-up? Room set-up and logistics is important. Often, cities hold study sessions in a different format than business meetings. Instead of sitting at the dais, where Council members line up in a row facing the audience, at a study session, Council members typically sit around a table facing each other. In the Edmonds Council Chambers, one or more tables could be set up in the space below the dais (where the PPP Committee has been sitting) unless a different room is determined to be better suited to the meetings. Would the study sessions be recorded? Yes. They would be televised and available to the public, just as business meetings are (unless the City Council chooses a different means of recording and transmitting). What about executive sessions? Executive sessions, when needed, would start at 6 pm ahead of any business meeting. Executive sessions would not normally be scheduled on the same evening as a study session. However, for the occasional circumstance when an executive session might be needed at a different time than before a regular business meeting, it could be specifically noticed and held, consistent with the Open Public Meetings Act, in conjunction with a study session or a special meeting. Some have asked about the use of a “3-touch” rule? Most cities don’t require 3 meetings on a topic. However, Shoreline’s rules of procedure (different than the municipal code) require 3 opportunities for Council information when ordinances are considered—except under certain conditions, such as when the Planning Commission has already had a public hearing on the matter or when the ordinance focuses on a routine topic. In Shoreline, the first information opportunity or “touch” is an ordinance topic being placed on the extended agenda (usually 2 weeks ahead of the meeting at which action will occur). The second opportunity is a work session. The third opportunity is a public hearing or other public meeting. Note: these 3 opportunities (i.e., advance agenda listing plus two meetings) don’t apply to resolutions, contract approvals, etc. The same three opportunities to address significant actions are common practice in other jurisdictions, such as Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood, but are not specifically required. In all Washington jurisdictions, routine business may proceed with only one meeting and such business may be placed on either the Consent Calendar or the regular calendar. Would the City’s municipal code need amending to put this proposal into effect? Yes, at least a minor amendment is likely to be needed, depending on the extent of the changes to be considered relative to the existing code. Based on direction from the City Council about the intended meeting format, an ordinance could be drafted to amend the municipal code consistent with the proposal, state statutes, etc. [Note: Just as now, not every detail of the Council’s meeting format needs to be in the Municipal Code. Some details can be handled Packet Page 126 of 212 5 through common practices and consensus or, if preferred, they can be adopted separately as rules of procedure.] What does our existing City Code say about the City Council’s meeting schedule? The existing City Code (ECC 1.04.010) calls for regular meetings each Tuesday of the month, with “work meetings” being each second and fourth Tuesday, as cited below. “Work meetings” is not a defined term, except that the code indicates such meetings must not include required public hearings unless appropriate advance notice is given. ECC 1.04.010 states: Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on each Tuesday of every month throughout the year in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, at 7:00 p.m. The second and fourth Tuesdays of every month are hereby designated as work meetings, and the city council shall not hold any public hearings for which notice is required to be given by state law or ordinance of the city unless special notice of the same is posted as provided in ECC 1.03.020. Council meetings shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. In the event state law requires an adoption of an ordinance or other action on other than a Tuesday, such as budget hearings, said dates are hereby declared to be additional regular meeting dates upon which date the action, ordinance, resolution or hearing may be taken and/or adopted. Committee meetings of the council shall be held in conjunction with work meetings of the council at such times and in accordance with such procedures as the council and its respective committees shall establish. The 10:00 p.m. adjournment deadline set by this section shall apply only to meetings of the council as a whole and shall not affect the ability of any council subcommittee to meet after such time when so scheduled by the chair or of the subcommittee. What key details should be considered for drafting an ordinance or deciding Council policy/procedure?  Whether the study sessions should be on the first and third Tuesdays or the second and fourth Tuesdays  Whether the study sessions should start at 7 pm  Whether all standing committees except the finance committee should be eliminated  (Optional) Nature of the finance committee’s specific duties  (Optional) How items are decided to be on the consent agenda To move the proposal forward, what steps are needed? The next step would be for the City Council to provide direction on whether to move forward with the “study sessions” concept and any key details of the proposal (see the above question) so that an ordinance can be drafted and brought back to the City Council. What is the recommendation of the Administration? For the City Council to direct that an ordinance implementing this proposal be drafted and brought back in a timely manner for City Council review and decision. Packet Page 127 of 212    AM-7092     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:40 Minutes   Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of Planning Board's Recommendation for Proposed Zoning Changes related to Westgate. Recommendation This is a discussion item. Previous Council Action The City Council held a briefing on the Westgate proposal on July 22, 2014, and a public hearing on August 4, 2014. Refer to the August 4, 2014, Council agenda item for further background. Narrative This is a follow-up discussion to the public hearing on the Westgate code proposals recommended by the Planning Board. Staff has been reviewing the hearing record and follow-up discussions on the draft code. As part of that review, we have been attempting to make sure that the overall statements of intent contained in various sections of the plan language and code are consistent with each other and avoid conflicts. The updated draft code in Exhibit 1 shows suggested changes we have made to the hearing draft; changes are indicated in underline/strikeout format. Suggested changes deal with a number of topics, including: 1. Clarifying the various building types to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types. 2. Adjusting the Building Type Location Diagram (page 8) to be more consistent with the overall intended commercial mixed use character of Westgate. (The old diagram is included on page 9 for reference, but will be deleted if the new diagram on page 8 is preferable.)   3. Clarifying the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area. Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirements. 4. An increased parking standard has been added for residential units that exceed 900 sq. ft.  This will achieve two goals, more residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) as well as providing an added incentive for small units. Packet Page 128 of 212 5. Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses. This is in two ways: (1) adding bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (page 37) and a potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling space in large-format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail space is provided in the building -- see page 6/7). 6. A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, and blank walls. We hope the suggestions contained in the updated draft code (Exhibit 1) assists with the discussion. Please refer to the Council packet from August 4, 2014, for additional background and material. Attachments Exhibit 1: Westgate code - Council discussion draft Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 08/22/2014 08:59 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/22/2014 08:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/22/2014 09:03 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/22/2014 09:03 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/21/2014 06:09 PM Final Approval Date: 08/22/2014  Packet Page 129 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 1 Code Changes to Implement Westgate Study (all new) 2 4 Chapter 16.110 WMU – Westgate Mixed Use Zone District 6 Sections: 16.110.000 Purposes. 8 16.110.010 Uses. 16.110.020 Site development standards. 10 16.110.030 Operating restrictions. 16.110.000 12 Purposes. The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone has the following specific purposes in addition to 14 the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage mixed-use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction 16 with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a 18 desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate District with a distinctive character. 20 B. Create mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community-friendly. 22 C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. 24 E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. 26 F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. 28 G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. 30 H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. 32 Packet Page 130 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 2 16.110.010 Uses. 2 A. Table 16.110-1. 4 Permitted Uses WMU Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A Offices A Service uses A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A Automobile sales and service C Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents A Printing, publishing and binding establishments A Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling C Multiple dwelling unit(s) A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 C Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) C Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A Packet Page 131 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 3 Permitted Uses WMU Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B Commercial parking lots C Wholesale uses X Hotels and motels A Amusement establishments C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions X Drive-in businesses C Laboratories C Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X Day-care centers A Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums C Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers C Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X A = Permitted primary use 2 B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit 4 D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 6 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.110-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following 8 criteria are met: Packet Page 132 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 4 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk and/or adjoining commercial areas. 2 2. The use shall be landscaped and designed to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape, as described in Chapter 22.110 ECDC. 4 16.110.020 6 Site development standards. A. Building and site development standards are specified in Chapter 22.110 ECDC. 8 B. Building setback along external streets. A building setback is required as follows: 12 feet from 100th Avenue W 10 12 feet from SR-104 C. Setbacks and Screening from P- or R-zoned property. All buildings shall be set back a 12 minimum of 15 feet from adjacent P- or R-zoned properties. The required setback from P- or R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and 14 permanently maintained by the owner of the WMU lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge running the length of the setback shall be provided within the setback 16 area. 18 D. Parking. Parking space requirements stated here prevail over parking space standards contained in ECDC 17.050. The specific parking requirements for the Westgate Mixed Use 20 zone are: 1. 1 space for every 500 square feet of leasable commercial space. 22 2. 1.2 spaces for every dwelling unit not exceeding 900 sq. ft. in livable area. 1.75 spaces for every dwelling unit over 900 sq. ft. in livable area. 24 Parking meeting the commercial parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. Shared parking may be provided per ECDC 20.030. 26 E. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. 16.110.030 28 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed 30 building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks and uses associated with amenity and open spaces; 32 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 34 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, 36 the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 38 7. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. 40 B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. 42 [Ord. 3320 § 2, 2000]. Packet Page 133 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 5 Chapter 22.110 Design Standards for the 2 WMU – Westgate Mixed Use District Sections: 4 22.110.000 Purpose and Intent. 22.110.010 Building Types. 6 22.110.020 Frontage Types. 22.110.030 Green Building Construction and Housing 8 22.110.050 Circulation. 22.110.070 Amenity Space and Green Feature Types. 10 22.110.080 Public Space Standards. 22.110.090 Height Bonus 12 22.110.000 Purpose and Intent. The core concept for the Westgate Mixed Use District is to create a vibrant mixed-use 14 activity center that enhances the economic development of the city and provides housing as well as retail and office uses to meet the needs of all age groups. This Chapter seeks to retain 16 key features of the area, including protecting the large trees and green surrounding hillsides, while increasing walkability and gathering spaces, such as plazas and open spaces. Important 18 aspects of this Chapter include: 20 Protecting steep slopes is a core concept of the WMU zone. 22 • Protecting steep slopes is a key concept. 24 • Designing a landscape emphasis for the primary intersection. • Creating a lively pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks and requirements for 26 buildings to be placed close to the sidewalk. • Landscaping the plazas, open spaces, and parking areas with required landscaped open 28 space. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Packet Page 134 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 6 • Promoting a sustainable low-impact development with a requirement for bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs and other features to retain and infiltrate storm water. 2 • Providing workforce housing and increasing residential uses including small-sized dwelling units. 4 • Providing options for non-motorized transportation linking new bike lanes into the city’s larger system of bike lanes and extending sidewalks and pedestrian paths into the surrounding 6 residential areas. 8 22.110.010 Building Types. A. Properties in the Westgate District have varying height limits depending on location and 10 topography as identified in ECDC 22.110.010.B and ECDC 22.110.090. Seven Building Types are allowed in the Westgate District, as listed below: 12 1. Rowhouse -– A series of Two two or more attached story townhome apartments or condominiums. 14 2. Courtyard - A cluster of apartment or condominium flats arranged to share one or more common courtyards. 16 3. Stacked Dwelling -– Usually aA primarily residential building with The the building massing is predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of residential units 18 and which may include ancillary non-residential commercial uses (such as exercise or health facilities or convenience shopping or services) on the ground level with 20 residential above. 4. Live-work Work - An integrated housing apartment or condominiumresidential and 22 working space designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. 5. Loft Mixed-Use - Loft Mixed-Use buildingsTheA building are predicated on horizontal 24 repetition andthat has vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and elevator access, with. Loft buildings have greater height per floor on one or more floors 26 to accommodate the additional loft area within a unit. 6. Side Court Mixed-Use -– A building with retail mixed-Use or service uses located on 28 the ground floor and office or residential uses above and including a side courtyard adjacent to the public realm, or community service mixed-use with office or residential 30 above. 7. Commercial Block | Mixed-Use -– A Mixedmixed-use building with retail and/or 32 service uses on at least the ground floor, with additional commercial or residential uses above. 34 B. Building Height. Building heights are described in terms of stories. Regardless of the 36 number of stories specified, overall building heights in the Westgate Mixed Use zone cannot exceed 25 feet for a two-story building, 35 feet for a three-story building, or 45 feet for 38 buildings with four stories. Buildings may only include a fourth story if the building meets the criteria contained in Chapter 22.110.090 ECDC. Building height is established by the finished 40 grade at the street front, so that buildings may not use adjoining slopes to increase the average height of the building above the street front level. The following diagram illustrates building 42 height limits and step back requirements for buildings in the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Unless otherwise specified, the height limit is three stories or 35 feet. 44 Packet Page 135 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 7 The only exception to these height limits is when a building contains an undivided retail space that is at least 15,000 square feet is size. When such a space is included on the ground 2 floor of a building (such as for a grocery or drug store), then the overall building height may be increased by 1 foot for each foot that the first floor height will be above 10 feet, up to a 4 total of no more than 5 feet, to accommodate the additional ceiling height needed to accommodate the large retail use, provided that the total height may be no more than 5 feeet 6 above the maximum height otherwise allowed by this subsection. Upon qualifying for the added height, the retail space may not be subdivided below the 15,000 square foot minimum 8 at any time during the building’s lifetime. 10 12 C. Building Locations. Setbacks established in Chapter 22.110.020 describe the minimum distances buildings must be placed from the SR-104 and 100th Avenue W rights-of-way. In 14 general, buildings shall be located at or within 10 feet of the setback line so that the buildings can relate to each other and help to define the adjoining open space and amenity spaces that 16 will surround them. However, exceptions may be granted as part of the design review process when it can be demonstrated that the proposed building will achieve these goals while also 18 fitting into an established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking is not located between the building and the public street. 20 D. Building Type Descriptions. The following describe the different building types and include diagrams indicating where each building type is allowed. Note that where descriptions 22 and standards refer to “street” this is intended to refer to either an external street or an internal street or drive which provides secondary vehicular and pedestrian access within the overall 24 development(s). Packet Page 136 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 8 Each building type is allowed only within specified locations within the Westgate district, as shown in the following Building Type Location Diagram. Most properties have an option 2 for more than one building type. 4 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Packet Page 137 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 9 2 Table of general allowed uses by floor for each building type. 4 1 “Not ground floor” means the use may locate on any floor other than the ground floor of a building. 6 Packet Page 138 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 10 1. Rowhouse 2 Rowhouse type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. A series of two Two or more attached dwellings with zero side yard setbacks located on a 8 qualifying lot in the Westgate District as shown in the Allowed Building Type Locations Diagram. 10 Access. The primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the external 12 street or sidewalk if feasible. Where dwellings are accessed from internal streets or circulation drives, then the primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the 14 internal street or circulation drive. Parking and services shall be accessed from an internal street or alley or tuck-under parking in a Mixed Type Development. Parking entrances are 16 allowed on an internal street if the garage entrance does not occupy more than one half the building frontage. 18 Amenity Space. Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. 20 Usable outdoor amenity space shall be provided in conjunction with and related to the dwelling units at no less than 15% of the lot area devoted to residential uses. The outdoor 22 Packet Page 139 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 11 space shall be of a regular geometry so that the space is usable for recreational or leisure use . Open Space 2 • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open 4 space. • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. 6 • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. Where buildings back up to steep topography, the open space is not required to be usable. 8 Landscape. Landscape may be used to separate a front yard from the front yards of adjacent units or 10 buildings. Any front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the 12 frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be 14 dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 16 Building Design and Massing. Buildings on corner properties adjacent to streets shall be designed with a main façade and 18 a secondary façade to provide street frontage on all streets. In a 3 story building, a townhouse dwelling may be stacked over a ground floor flat. In this case, the flat shall be accessed by its 20 own front doors at the street and the townhouse dwelling shall be accessed by a separate front door and an internal stair. In a 2 story building, the rowhouse consists of a townhouse 22 dwelling that is accessed from the street and faces the street, or residential flats that each have a street entry. 24 Rowhouse buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 22.110.015. 26 28 Packet Page 140 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 12 2. Courtyard 2 Courtyard type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. A cluster of dwelling units arranged to share one or more common courtyards. The 8 individual units may be rowhouses or flats or stacked flats. The courtyard is private space that is adjacent to the public realm and may provide access to tuck-under parking. Courtyard 10 building types may house ground floor commercial/flex uses. Access 12 • The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off a common courtyard or directly from a street. Access to commercial uses shall be directly from a street. 14 • Access to second-story units may be through an open or open roofed stair. • Parking shall be accessed through an alley or interior street if present. 16 Amenity Space. Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. 18 Sites shall be designed to provide usable open amenity space with a total area of not less than 15% of the lot. A central courtyard and / or multiple separated or interconnected courtyards, 20 roof decks, green roofs, plazas and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area only if they are accessible to the public. In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of 22 the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below: Packet Page 141 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 13 • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum of 40 feet when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet when the court is oriented North/South. 2 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 4 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 6 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 8 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 10 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courtyards, balconies and roof decks. • Courtyards shall be connected to the public way and/or to each other. Connecting spaces 12 shall be at least 10 feet wide. Landscape. 14 Landscape may shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcels. Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s 16 maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no 18 more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 20 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Building Design and Massing. 22 • Entrance doors and living spaces (great room, dining, living, family) should be oriented toward the courtyard and exterior street. Service rooms may be oriented toward the side-yard, 24 rear yard or alley. • No exterior arcade may shall encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 26 • Stoops up to 3 feet in height may be placed above below grade parking. Building size and massing. 28 • Buildings shall be composed of flats and rowhouses alone or in combination. • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 30 • Buildings shall be composed of one, two, or three story masses, each using design features such as combinations of materials, windows or decorative details to suggest smaller-32 scale 30-foot-wide individual residential masses. • The building is not required to appear to be one building. 34 Courtyard buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (2) Orientation to Street, (3) Ground Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in 36 Chapter 22.110.015. 38 Packet Page 142 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 14 3. Stacked dwellings 2 Stacked dwellings type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Stacked Dwellings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of units 8 organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. These buildings may be used for ancillary non-residential commercial uses (such as exercise or health facilities or convenience 10 shopping or services) on the ground level only. Access 12 • The primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed through a lobby accessible from the street. 14 • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. Amenity space. 16 Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. The primary shared open space is the rear yard, which shall be designed as a courtyard. The 18 rear yard may be designed for ground installation or as the lid of a below-grade parking garage. Side yards are allowed for common use gardens. 20 Packet Page 143 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 15 Sites shall be designed to provide usable open space with a total area of 15% of the lot. Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the 2 cumulative total area. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 4 In a project with multiple courts, at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below: 6 • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum of 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. 8 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 10 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courts, balconies and roof decks. • Courts shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. 12 • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. Open Space 14 • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open 16 space. • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. 18 • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. Landscape. 20 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcels. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 22 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 24 Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of planters and hardscape landscaping. 26 Building Design and Massing. Buildings shall be composed of flats, lofts, and rowhouses alone or in combination. 28 • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. • Buildings shall be composed of individual masses that are intended to break up the 30 building into identifiable housing units rather than large undifferentiated blocks. The building is not required to appear to be one building. 32 Stacked dwelling buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 34 22.110.015. 36 Packet Page 144 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 16 4. Live-Work 2 Live-Work type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description An integrated housing unit and working space occupied and utilized by a single household 8 in a structure, either single family units in clusters or a multi-family building, that has been designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. Work uses shall be at the 10 ground floor. A live-work structure may be located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Allowed Building Type Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-8. 12 Access The primary entrance to each ground floor work/flex space shall be accessed directly from 14 and face the external street or a sidewalk if feasible. Where dwellings are accessed from internal streets, then the primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and 16 face the internal street. Packet Page 145 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 17 The upstairs residential unit may be accessed by a separate entry and internal stair that is accessed from and faces the street. Access may also be provided by a shared lobby that 2 provides separate access to the commercial/flex and dwelling uses. Parking and services shall be accessed from an alley or tuck-under parking located under 4 the building. Parking entrances are allowed on an internal street or alley if the garage entrance does not occupy more than one half the building frontage. 6 Amenity Space Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. 8 Front Yards are defined by the street and frontage type requirements of the zone. One usable outdoor space shall be provided behind the live-work at no less than 15% of the 10 lot area and of a regular geometry with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. Where buildings back up to steep topography, the open space is not required to be usable. Alternatively, 50% 12 of the usable open space may be provided at the front of the lot. Open Space 14 • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open 16 space. • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. 18 • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. Landscape 20 Landscape shall not obscure the storefront of the ground floor flex/work space. In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 22 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Frontage 24 • Commercial/work/flex space and living areas should shall be oriented toward the fronting street or sidewalk. Service rooms should be oriented towards the side and rear yards. 26 • Commercial/work/flex spaces shall conform to Shopfront Frontage Type Standards (see ECDC 22.110.020). 28 • Buildings on corner lots may provide an appropriate frontage type on each street front. Building Design and Massing 30 Live-work units may be designed as individual buildings composed of 2- and/or 3-story volumes or included in larger buildings in compliance with the applicable building type 32 requirements. Live-Work buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level 34 Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 22.110.015. 36 38 Packet Page 146 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 18 5. Loft Mixed-Use 2 Loft Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Loft Mixed-use buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of 8 units organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. Loft buildings up to 3 stories in height are permitted. These buildings have greater height on at least one floor to 10 accommodate additional floor loft area within a unit. These buildings may be used for residential, office, and commercial uses, except that residential units may not be located on 12 the ground floor. Access 14 • The primary entrance to each unit may be accessed be through a street level or elevated lobby accessible from the street. 16 • The entry to each ground floor unit may be through an elevator/stair corridor. • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. 18 • Access to upper level loft areas is via an internal stair. Packet Page 147 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 19 Amenity space. Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. 2 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 4 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 6 • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. • The primary shared open space is the rear yard. The yard may be designed for ground 8 installation or for the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck. Side yards are allowed for common use gardens. 10 In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below: 12 • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. 14 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 16 30-foot wide court. • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courtyards, balconies and roof decks. 18 • Courtyards shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. 20 • The minimum courtyard shall be 15% of the lot area. Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total open space area. 22 • No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. Landscape 24 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from front yards on adjacent parcels. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 26 Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of planters and hardscape landscapingprovide a combination of integrated landscaping and 28 seating/active circulation areas. In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 30 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Building Design and Massing. 32 Buildings shall be composed of lofts alone or above commercial space on the ground level.Lofts may be provided as part of commercial or residential units, but must be provided 34 on at least one floor of the building. Units may be repetitive or unique in design. • Buildings shall be composed of one, two, or three story masses, each designed to loft 36 scale. • The building is required to appear to be one building. 38 • The main volume may be flanked by a secondary volume. Loft Mixed Use buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (2) 40 Orientation to Street, (3) Ground Level Details, (4) Pedestrian Façade, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 22.110.015. 42 44 Packet Page 148 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 20 6. Side Court Mixed-Use 2 Side Court Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description A single or cluster of buildings containing a mix of uses, including commercial as well as 8 dwelling units or office suites arranged to share one or more common courtyards. The individual units or suites are rowhouses, flats or stacked flats. The side courtyard is a semi-10 public space that is adjacent to the public realm. Side courtyard building types may shall house ground floor commercial spaces with office or dwelling units above. Side court 12 buildings may be located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Allowed Building Type Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-12. 14 Access • The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off the common courtyard 16 or directly from an external street or sidewalk. Access to commercial and office uses may be directly from an external street, sidewalk, or side courtyard. 18 • Access to second-story units or suites shall be through an open, open roofed, or internal stair. 20 • Parking shall be accessed through an alley, internal circulation drive, or shared driveway access. Parking shall not be accessed directly from the exterior street via individual driveways 22 Field Code Changed Packet Page 149 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 21 • Parking entrances to below grade garages and driveways should be located as close as possible to the side or rear of each lot. 2 • Entrance doors and living spaces (great room, dining, living, family) should shall be oriented toward the courtyard and/or exterior street or sidewalk. Service rooms may be 4 oriented toward the side-yard, rear yard or alley. Amenity space. 6 Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in Chapter 22.110.070. Courtyard buildings shall be designed to provide a side courtyard and or multiple separated or 8 interconnected courtyards with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and comprising at least 15% of the lot area. No exterior arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of the side 10 courtyard. In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the 12 patterns below: • Dwellings shall face a side yard or courtyard. 14 • Major ground floor rooms shall be open to the active side yard with large windows and doors. 16 • When located on a side yard, a driveway shall be integrated into the design of the yard through the use of a reduced paved area, permeable paving materials for a landscaped area 18 and usable outdoor space. • Rear yards are not required. 20 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 22 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 24 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 26 Landscape Landscape may shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent 28 parcels. Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the 30 frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). 32 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 34 Building Design and Massing • The building elevation abutting an inactive side yard shall be designed to provide at least 36 one horizontal break of at least three feet and one vertical break. • Buildings on corner lots shall be designed with two facades using similar scale and design 38 features without the use of blank walls. • Units within the buildings may be flats and/or townhouses. 40 Side Court Mixed Use buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (2) Orientation to Street, (3) Ground Level Details, (4) Pedestrian Façade, and (5) Treating Blank 42 Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 22.110.015. 44 Packet Page 150 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 22 7. Commercial Block Mixed-Use 2 Commercial Block Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Commercial block dwellings are permitted. TheseMixed Use buildings are designed for 8 retail, and service uses, and /or office uses on the ground floor street frontage, with upper floors configured for dwelling units or commercial uses. The buildings are predicated on 10 horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. These buildings shall be used for nonresidential commercial uses on the 12 ground level. These buildings are located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Allowed Building Type Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-14. 14 Access • The primary entrance to each building shall be accessed through a street level lobby or 16 elevated lobby accessible from the street or sidewalk. • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. 18 Packet Page 151 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 23 • The entry to each ground floor commercial space shall be directly from and face the street or sidewalk. 2 Amenity space. Publicly accessible amenity Shared open space shall be provided as described in Chapter 4 22.110.070., and may be a combination of yard(s), courtyards or rooftop garden(s). Shared open amenity space may include the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck. Side 6 yards or courts are allowed for common use gardens. In a project with multiple open amenity space areas at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below: 8 • Optimal open amenity space area dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet wide when the court is 10 oriented North/South. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. 12 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 14 30-foot wide court. Open Space 16 • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open 18 space. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 20 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courts, balconies and roof decks. • Open space areas shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. 22 • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Central courtyards, roof 24 decks, green roofs, plazas and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total open space area. 26 Landscape Private landscaping is required. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to 28 create a sense of place. Open space areas located over below-grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of 30 planters and hardscape landscaping. In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade 32 and privacy. Building Design and Massing 34 Buildings shall be composed of office, retail, flats, or lofts alone or above commercial space on the ground level. Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 36 • The building is required to appear to be one building. • The main volume may be flanked by one or more secondary volumes. 38 • Large floor plate retail such as grocery stores, drug stores, nurserynurseries, and exercise gyms are encouraged and are allowed on the first or second floors of a mixed-use building. 40 Commercial Mixed Use buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (2) Orientation to Street, (3) Ground Level Details, (4) Pedestrian Façade, and (5) Treating Blank 42 Walls design treatments specified in Chapter 22.110.015. 44 Packet Page 152 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 24 22.110.015 Design Treatments Purpose 2 This Section describes building design features that are referenced as being required in the building types described in Chapter 22.110.010. 4 1. Massing and Articulation 6 Intent: To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the 8 building form to a pedestrian scale. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base 10 and top. A “base” can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural 12 detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top 14 edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element 16 that creates a shadow line. Where a single building façade exceeds 60 feet 18 in length, use a change in design features (such as a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to articulate the building so that it appears to consist of multiple smaller-20 scale building segments. 22 2. Orientation to Street Intent: To reinforce pedestrian activity and 24 orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. 26 Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot or 28 alley. Ground floor commercial space shall be accessible and within a height of 7” from the 30 adjoining sidewalk. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and shall be given a visually 32 distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: 34 a. Higher bay(s); b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet); 36 c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. 38 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.17", Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.17", Keep with next, Keep lines together Packet Page 153 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 25 3. Ground Level Details Intent: To reinforce the character of the streetscape 2 by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian 4 streets. Ground-floor, street-facing facades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate 6 at least five of the following elements: a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by 8 ornamental brackets; b. Medallions; 10 c. Belt courses; d. Plinths for columns; 12 e. Bulkhead for storefront window; f. Projecting sills; 14 g. Tile work; h. Transom or clerestory windows; 16 i. Planter box; j. An element not listed here, as approved, that 18 meets the intent. 20 4. Pedestrian Façade Intent: To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. The 22 ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 40 percent of the building façade that lies between an 24 average of two feet and 10 feet above grade. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or consist of darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. 26 5. Treating Blank Walls 28 Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided 30 shall have architectural treatment. At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing facade: 32 a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block); b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; 34 c. Belt courses of a different texture and color; d. Projecting cornice; 36 e. Decorative tile work; f. Medallions; 38 g. Opaque or translucent glass; h. Artwork or wall graphics; 40 i. Lighting fixtures; j. Green walls; 42 k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.17", Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.17", Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.17", Keep with next, Keep lines together Packet Page 154 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 26 22.110.020 Frontage Types. 2 Purpose This Section defines how the buildings within Westgate relate to the public realm of the 4 sidewalk and other common use areas. The purpose of defining Frontage Types is to encourage the development of a variety of frontage types and to encourage each building to 6 relate to the public realm in ways that are attractive, inviting, and accessible to all. Principles and Standards 8 The frontage types for each proposed development shall be designed in concert with the Building Types and standards presented in sections 22.110.010. 10 Primary frontage. “Primary frontage” is frontage that faces main public spaces or circulation areas of higher pedestrian importance. Entrances are required. Examples are street 12 fronts or interior access drives that link developments. Secondary frontage. “Secondary frontage” is frontage that faces areas of lesser pedestrian 14 importance. Entrances to buildings are not required. Examples include SR-104 when an alternative interior drive or pedestrian walkway is able to provide linkage to other 16 developments and pedestrian connections within the overall developed area or Westgate quadrant. 18 This section identifies five Frontage Types for primary and secondary frontages, as shown in the figure on the next page. Each of the five frontage types are described and depicted in a 20 section view. For each Frontage Type, the description concludes by identifying those Building Types for which that Frontage Type is permitted. For secondary frontages (permitted along 22 portions of SR 104, for example), no building entrance is required and the frontage types do not apply. Frontages for retail uses are required to provide windows facing the public street, 24 circulation drive, or sidewalk, glazed with clear glass and occupying no less than 60% of the ground-level frontage. 26 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Packet Page 155 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 27 In general, entries to ground floor commercial space shall be directly from and face the related primary frontage. Additional entries may be provided, for example from parking or 2 secondary frontages. Blank walls are not permitted. 4 6 8 10 a. Terrace or Elevated Entry: The main façade is set back from the frontage line by an 12 elevated terrace or entry. This type buffers residential use from sidewalks. The elevated terrace is also suitable for outdoor cafes. Terrace or Elevated Entry frontage 14 is allowed on all building types. 16 b. Forecourt: The main façade is at the building line with with a portion set back for a 18 small court space. The court could be used to provide shopping or restaurant seating in commercial buildings, or as an entry court for residential uses. this type should be 20 used sparingly. Forecourt frontage may be used on Courtyard, Stacked Dwellings, and Live-Work building types. 22 c. Stoop: The main façade is near the frontage line with the first story elevated to 24 provide privacy. The stoop is appropriate for ground floor residential uses. Stoop frontage may be used on Rowhouse, Courtyard, Live-Work and Stacked Dwellings 26 building types. 28 d. Shopfront: The main façade is aligned close to the frontage line with the building 30 entrance at sidewalk grade. The covering shall extend far enough to provide pedestrians protection from the weather. This type is appropriate for retail or office 32 uses. Shopfront frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, Live-Work, Loft Mixed- Use, Side Court Mixed-Use, or Commercial Mixed-Use building types. 34 e. Gallery (or arcade): The main façade is set back from the frontage line with an 36 attached cantilevered colonnade overlapping the sidewalk. The entry should be at sidewalk grade. The gallery/arcade should be no less than 8’ wide. This type is 38 appropriate for retail or office uses. Gallery/arcade frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, Live-Work, Loft Mixed-Use, Side Court Mixed-Use, or Commercial Mixed-40 Use building types. 42 22.110.030 Green Building Construction and Housing. Purpose 44 The purpose of this Section is to encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic segments and to encourage sustainable development 46 through the use of development standards, requirements and incentives. Green Building and Site Design Criteria 48 All development in the Westgate District shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED Certified rating or equivalent as a requirement and shall meet a minimum Green Factor Score 50 of 0.3. Packet Page 156 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 28 Sustainable site design. All development shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED Certified standards, or an 2 equivalent. Green Factor Score requirements shall be used in the design of sustainable site features and low-impact stormwater treatment systems. A Green Factor Score of 0.3 is 4 required of all developments (see ECDC 22.110.070). Pervious surfaces shall be integrated into site design and may include: pervious pavement, 6 pervious pavers and vegetated roofs. Capture and reuse strategies including the use of rainwater harvesting cisterns may be substituted for the effective area of pervious surface 8 required. Runoff generated on–site shall be routed through a treatment system such as a structured 10 stormwater planter, bioswale, rain garden, pervious pavement, or cisterns. Runoff leaving the site shall conform to City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Code Chapter 18.30 of the 12 City of Edmonds Municipal Code. 14 Housing. To promote a balance in age demographics and encourage age diversity, the City of 16 Edmonds is actively encouraging a greater number of dwelling units targeting young professionals and young workers through workforce housing provisions. The Westgate Mixed 18 Use District requires that at least 10% of residential units shall be very small units designed for affordable workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and that not more than 10% of all 20 dwelling units may exceed 1,600 square feet in size. 22 22.110.050 Circulation and parking. A. Alternative transportation. 24 The goals of the Westgate Mixed Use District include improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. Developers of private property within Westgate shall support the 26 pedestrian and bicycle use of the District by providing: • Internal circulation systems for both bicyclists and pedestrians within the property, 28 • Connections to off-site systems in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties, • Bicycle racks and other supportive facilities, and 30 • Connections to bus stops and transit routes. B. Internal circulation drives. 32 The concept for an Internal Circulation drive is that of a shared street. This concept is intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and 34 provide pedestrian connectivity and to reduce the impact of local traffic movement on surrounding arterial streets. 36 Thoroughfare Type: shared street Movement: yield 38 Design Speed: 10 mph Traffic Lanes: 10 feet 40 Parking: none Curb to Curb Distance: no curbs 42 Sidewalks: 6 feet 44 Packet Page 157 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 29 Sample street section for internal circulation drive. 2 C. Parking 4 The Westgate District parking standards are intended to reinforce that the area is pedestrian-oriented and intended to be equally accessible by people on foot, in wheelchairs, 6 on bicycles, or travelling by motorized vehicles. These standards strive to: (a) maximize a compatible mix of parking and pedestrian circulation; and 8 (b) encourage the development of shared parking; and (c) promote density and diversity of the built environment. 10 Design standards for parking lots include the following: (a) No parcel shall be used principally as a parking lot unless it provides centralized 12 parking for the larger developed area framed by external streets (e.g. a parking garage). (b) The edge of any surface parking lot shall be planted with shrubs or street trees, planted 14 at an average distance not to exceed thirty (30) feet on center and aligned three (3) to seven (7) feet behind the common lot line. This requirement may be reduced for parking lot edges 16 abutting parking on adjacent lots, when parking lots are linked by vehicular and pedestrian connections (see item (h) below). 18 (c) Plantings designed to provide a minimum tree canopy coverage of at least 40% in 10 years and no less than 60% in 20 years. 20 (d) Parking lot pathways are to be provided at least every four rows of parking and a maximum distance of 180 feet shall be maintained between paths. Pathways shall connect 22 with major building entries or other sidewalks, pathways, and destinations, and must be universally accessible and meet ADA standards. 24 (e) Landscaping in parking lots shall integrate with on-site pathways, include permeable pavements or bioswales where feasible, and minimize use of impervious pavement. 26 (f) Where a parking lot is abutting another parking lot on an adjacent parcel, vehicular and pedestrian connections between lots are required, to facilitate circulation within Westgate and 28 to reduce the need for vehicles to return to the street when traveling between sites. Packet Page 158 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 30 22.110.070 Amenity Space and Green Feature Standards. A. Purpose and intent. 2 This section identifies the types of amenity spaces and green open space allowed within the Westgate District, and provides design standards for each type to ensure that proposed 4 development is consistent with the City of Edmonds goals for character and quality of the places surrounding the buildings on private property within the Westgate area. This section 6 also describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each development within Westgate. The intent of the proposed system is not only to establish amenity spaces that serve the 8 community and local needs, but also to provide for the protection and enhancement of natural resources for the benefit of the greater community. Core principles of the Westgate Mixed 10 Use Zone are to promote: • an environment that encourages and facilitates bicycling and pedestrian activity —12 “walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and • coherence of the public-right-of-way, serving to assist residents, building owners and 14 managers with understanding the relationship between the public right-of-way and their own properties; and 16 • sustainability by providing for trees and plants which contribute to privacy, the reduction of noise and air pollution, shade, maintenance of the natural habitat, conservation of water and 18 rainwater management. 20 B. Green Factor Requirements and Fulfillment Overview 22 The Green Factor sets a minimum score that is required to be achieved through implementation of allowed landscaping practices. The program provides a menu of 24 landscaping practices that are intended to increase the functional quantity of landscape in a site, to improve livability and ecological quality while allowing flexibility in the site design 26 and implementation. In this approach, each allowed landscape feature utilized in a project earns credits that are weighted and calculated through use of the Green Factor Scoresheet. The 28 score is based upon the relationship between the site size and the points earned by implementation of the specified landscape features. 30 For example, credits may be earned for quantity and size of trees and shrubs, bioretention facilities, and depth of soil. Built features such as green roofs, vegetated walls and permeable 32 paving may also earn credits. Bonus points may be earned with supplementary elements such as drought tolerant and native plants, rainwater irrigation, public visibility and food 34 cultivation. Scoring priorities come from livability considerations, an overall decrease in impervious surfaces and climate change adaptation. The functional benefits target a reduction 36 in stormwater runoff, a decrease in building energy, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in habitat space. 38 The minimum score required for all new development in the Westgate District is .30, earned through implementation of features that comply with Green-Factor standards. Other 40 site requirements such as Setbacks, Open Space Standards, Street and Parking Standards, and City of Edmonds Municipal Stormwater Code and City of Edmonds Code for Landscaping 42 Requirements also apply. Green Factor credit may be earned for these site requirements only if they comply with Green Factor standards. 44 Packet Page 159 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 31 Application and Implementation The Green Factor for the Westgate District uses for reference Seattle Green Factor tools. 2 These include: • the Green Factor Worksheet 4 • the Green Factor Score Sheet • • Plant and Tree lists. 6 The Green Factor tools are included in ECDC 22.110.100. In complying with the Green Factor Code, the following steps apply: 8 Step 1. Designers and permit applicants select features to include in planning their site and building and apply them to the site design. Applicants track the actual quantity—e.g. square 10 footage of landscaped areas, pervious paved amenity space, number of trees—using the Green Factor Worksheet. 12 Step 2. Calculations from the Worksheet are entered on the Scoresheet. The professional also enters the site’s square footage on the electronic Scoresheet. The instrument then scores 14 each category of proposed landscape improvements, and provides a total score in relation to the overall site size. The designer can immediately know if the site design is achieving the 16 required score of .30, and can adjust the design accordingly. Note that improvements to the public right-of-way (such as public sidewalks, street tree plantings) are allowed to earn points, 18 even though only the private site square footage is included in the site size calculation. Step 3. The landscape professional submits the Scoresheet with the project plans, certifying 20 that the plan meets or exceeds the minimum Green Factor Score and other requirements for the property. The submission also requires indication that a Landscape Management Plan has 22 been submitted to the client. Step 4. City of Edmonds staff verify that the code requirements have been met before 24 issuance of a permit. Using Green Factor with Other Requirements 26 While a specific green feature may count for both Green Factor calculations and other requirements such as Open Space, the requirements for each need to be met. As described in 28 section 22.110.070(C) of this code, Open Space includes Amenity Space, which is usable open space with dimensions for recreational and passive leisure use. In conjunction with the 30 Green Factor requirements, the percentage of Amenity Space for Westgate is 15% of lot size, to be addressed within each development project, with the possibility of cooperative 32 aggregation between projects. The Open Space section 22.110.070(C) also addresses green feature requirements, such as retention of vegetation on steep slopes, specifications for tree 34 size, and stormwater management (refer to ECDC18.30); these are examples of features that are likely to overlap with and contribute to the Green Factor score. 36 Green Factor Categories: Landscape Elements 38 • Landscaped Areas (based on soil depth) • Bio-retention Facilities 40 • Plantings (mulch and ground cover) • Shrubs and Perennials 42 • Tree Canopy (based on tree sizes) • Green Roofs 44 • Vegetated Walls • Approved Water Features 46 Packet Page 160 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 32 • Permeable Paving • Structural Soil Systems 2 • Bonuses for Drought Tolerant Plants, Harvested Rain Water, Food Cultivation, etc. 4 C. Open Space Standards The Westgate District includes two types of open space: Amenity Space and Green Open 6 Space. 8 Amenity Space Amenity space is designed to provide residents of all ages with a variety of outdoor activity 10 space. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form the places that encourage residents and visitors to spend time in the company of others or to find solitude in 12 an outdoor setting. All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of parcel size as amenity space. 14 Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is encouraged and can be part of the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in Chapter 22.110.070(B) and can contribute to 16 bonus heights as defined in Chapter 22.110.090. All qualifying amenity space shall be open and accessible to the public during business hours. 18 The types of amenity space are as follows: (a) Lawns: An open space, available for unstructured recreation. A lawn may be spatially 20 defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and trees and shall provide a minimum of 60% planted pervious surface area (such as a turf, 22 groundcover, soil or mulch.) (b) Plazas: An open space, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza 24 shall be spatially defined primarily by building facades, with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are encouraged. Plazas shall be 26 located between buildings and at the intersection of important streets. Plazas shall provide a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, 28 groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. 30 (c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation or civic purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape 32 shall consist of paths, lawns and trees with a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance 34 may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (d) Accessible Green Rooftops: Accessible green rooftops can confer significant added value 36 to a building’s occupants or to the general public, with benefits ranging from enhanced educational opportunities for schools, landscaped “roofparks” for leisure or recreational 38 opportunities, horticultural therapy, and even food production. Accessible green rooftops that provide these benefits may only count toward required amenity space if the building type 40 specifically lists that feature as a permitted amenity space type. Sidewalks: Although not counting toward required amenity space, the purpose of sidewalks is 42 to provide safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian circulation along all streets, access to shopfronts and businesses, and to improve the character and identity of commercial and 44 residential areas consistent with the City of Edmonds vision. New development meeting the standards of this Chapter may be allowed to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the 46 Packet Page 161 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 33 public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, or other uses consistent with City code standards. 2 Green Open Space 4 The goal for the overall open space in the Westgate District is to create a unified, harmonious, and aesthetically pleasing environment that also integrates sustainable concepts and solutions 6 that restore natural functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate District shall incorporate green open space, as described in the regulations for each building 8 type. Open space also which includes: (a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying 10 interconnectivity of the Westgate District and surrounding neighborhoods. Species selection will be in character with the local and regional environment, and comprised of an appropriate 12 mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of recreation and amenity space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the 14 District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. • All new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. 16 • All new development shall plant new trees in accordance with this chapter. (b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees 18 and vegetation on protected slopes, as shown on the map included in this section. No development activity, including activities such as clearing, grading, or construction of 20 structures or retaining walls, shall extend uphill of the protected slope line shown on the following map. 22 Packet Page 162 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 34 2 (c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks should be conveyed to planted parkways. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the roadways should be directed 4 into bioswales and/or pervious paving in curbside parking areas, located along the street edges where it can infiltrate into the ground. Perforated curbs through which street stormwater 6 runoff can flow to open vegetated swales may also be provided, wherever feasible. 22.110.080 Public Space Standards. 8 In the Westgate District – and within the larger context of the City of Edmonds – there are multiple opportunities to enhance public space for recreational use, pedestrian activity, and 10 ecological health. Future development of the Westgate District shall capitalize on these opportunities to strengthen the overall character of the District’s public space. 12 Public Space: General Requirements 14 Public space shall enhance and promote the environmental quality and the aesthetic character of the Westgate District in the following ways: 16 (a) the landscape shall define, unify and enhance the public realm; including streets, parks, plazas, and sidewalks; 18 (b) the landscape shall be sensitive to its environmental context and utilize plant species that reduce the need for supplemental irrigation water; 20 Packet Page 163 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 35 (c) the landscape shall cleanse and detain storm water on site by utilizing a combination of biofiltration, permeable paving and subsurface detention methods; and, 2 (d) the landscape shall be compatible with encouraging health and wellness, encouraging walking, bicycling, and other activities. 4 Public Space: Sustainability 6 The goal for the overall landscape design of public spaces is to create a unified, harmonious, socially vibrant, and aesthetically pleasing environment that also integrates 8 sustainable concepts and solutions to restore natural functions and processes. The public right of way and urban\street runoff becomes an extension of existing drainage pathways and the 10 natural ecology. Water efficient landscaping shall be introduced to reduce irrigation requirements based on a 12 soil/ climate analysis to determine the most appropriate indigenous/native-in-character, and drought tolerant plants. All planted areas, except for lawn and seeded groundcover, shall 14 receive a surface layer of specified recycled mulch to assist in the retention of moisture and reduce watering requirements, while minimizing weed growth and reducing the need for 16 chemical herbicide treatments. Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation technology with low-pressure 18 applications such as drip, soaker hose, rain shut-off devices, and low volume spray will be used. The efficiency and uniformity of a low water flow rate reduces evaporation and runoff 20 and encourages deep percolation. After the initial growth period of three to seven years, irrigation may be limited in accordance with City requirements then in place. 22 The location and selection of all new tree planting will adhere to ‘green infrastructure’ principles by visually expressing the underlying interconnectivity of the Westgate 24 development. Species selection will be comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of recreation and open 26 space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the neighborhood by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Trees will also be used 28 to soften and shade surface parking and circulation areas. 30 32 Packet Page 164 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 36 Stormwater management. Stormwater shall be consistent with ECDC 18.30. 2 Stormwater and hydrology components will be integrated into the Westgate District to restore and maintain natural functions and processes, mitigate negative environmental 4 impacts. Public rights-of-way, proposed open space and parking lots will filter and infiltrate 6 stormwater to the maximum extent feasible to protect the receiving waters of Puget Sound. This ecological concept transcends the Westgate District to positively affect the surrounding 8 neighborhoods, stream corridors and the regional watershed. The two primary objectives of the proposed stormwater and hydrology components are: 10 (a) to reduce volume and rate of runoff; and (b) to eliminate or minimize runoff pollutants through natural filtration. 12 These objectives will be met by: (a) maximizing pervious areas; 14 (b) maximizing the use of trees; (c) controlling runoff into bioswales and biofiltration strips; 16 (d) utilizing permeable paving surfaces where applicable and feasible; (e) utilizing portions of parks and recreational spaces as detention basin; and 18 (f ) removing sediments and dissolved pollutants from runoff. 22.110.090 Height Bonus. 20 Areas eligible for a 4th story height bonus are shown in the diagram contained in Chapter 22.110.010.B. In order to obtain the bonus, the proposal must obtain 8 points from the Height 22 Bonus Score Sheet, including points in at least three different scoring categories. When a 4th story is included in a building, the 4th story must be stepped back at least 10 feet 24 from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Ave W. In addition, no 3rd or 4th story may be located within 30 feet of the intersection of SR-100 and 100th Ave W, measured from the 26 corner points of the right-of-way intersection. 28 Packet Page 165 of 212 Edmonds City Council | Westgate Draft 08.26.2014 37 Height Bonus Score Sheet Height Bonus to obtain 4 stories requires 8 points with points in at least 3 4 categories 1 Green Building Program (points are not additive) Points  Required 2 Built Green*/LEED* Certified Rating or equivalent Required  Credit 1 LEED* Silver / Built Green* 4-5 Rating 1  Credit 2 LEED* Gold or Evergreen Sustainable Development Rating 2  Credit 3 Passive House Standard / LEED* Platinum Rating 4  Credit 4 Living Building* 6 Green Factor (points are not additive) Points  Required Green Factor Score 0.3 Required  Credit 1 Green Factor Score 0.4 2  Credit 2 Green Factor Score 0.5 3  Credit 3 Green Factor Score 0.6 4  Credit 4 Green Factor Score ≥0.7 5 Amenity Space (points are not additive) Points  Required Percentage of amenity space 15% Required  Credit 1 Percentage of amenity space 20% 2  Credit 2 Percentage of amenity space 25% 3  Credit 3 Percentage of amenity space ≥30% 4 Alternative Transportation (points are additive) Points  Required Meet street standards incl. bikeway & pedestrian networks Required  Credit 1 Car-share parking3., minimum 2 spaces 1  Credit 2 Charging facility for electric cars, minimum 4 spaces 1  Credit 3 Indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities 1 Large Format Retail Space  Credit 1 Development contains one or more retail spaces >15,000 sf 3 1 See locational requirements for extra floor bonus in Chapter 22.110.090. 2 “Required” means required for all development, whether seeking a height bonus or not. 2 3. “Car-share” parking refers to parking for vehicles that are “shared” or rented by the hour or portion of a day. 4 22.110.100 Green Factor Tools 6 The Green Factor Tools are adopted by reference herein as if set forth in their entirety for use in meeting the Green Factor requirements described in ECDC 22.110.070(B). 8 Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Packet Page 166 of 212    AM-7089     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation on Development Code Update affecting the CG zones in the Highway 99 Area. Recommendation This is an overview of the Planning Board's recommendations. A public hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2014. Previous Council Action On April 22, 2014, the Council held a joint meeting with the Planning Board and discussed Highway 99 zoning along with other issues. The Council asked the Planning Board to look at Highway 99 issues. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its recommendations on a set of changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code to address mixed use and parking standards in the CG/CG2 zones.  This was referred to the Planning Board by the City Council on April 22nd of this year (see Exhibit 2). Note that the use and parking issues were looked at first, while the Board understands that additional time and effort will be needed to explore other issues, such as transit-oriented development nodes, in the corridor. As just noted, the Planning Board has focused first on a couple of issues related to Highway 99 zoning: 1. Removing the 2nd-story-commercial requirement in the CG/CG2 zones. 2. Streamlining parking standards. These have been identified as obstacles to redevelopment and encouraging a more mixed-use environment along Highway 99. Given the improved transit access along the corridor, and emerging trends leading to more intensive mixed use and commercial development along similar routes in the region, addressing these two topics (parking and mixed use) appears to be a good opportunity to place Edmonds' stretch of Highway 99 in a more favorable economic development position. The attached code document (Attachment 1) contains the Planning Board's recommendations, as discussed by the Board during its July 23, 2014 public hearing and recommendation. As part of its hearing, the Board explored several proposed amendments that would apply to the CG zones along Highway 99. As summarized in the Board's hearing draft (Exhibit 3), options considered by the Planning Board included: 1. Pages 2-3. Removal of the general prohibition of residential uses on the first or second story of any Packet Page 167 of 212 structure. The code would now provide for specific criteria for mixed use development, but without the general residential prohibition. The Board recommended this change. 2. Page 4. Modification of setback requirement. The current 4-foot setback was provided to accommodate car dealers. A larger standard setback could be re-established for other uses while retaining the 4-foot setback for car dealers. The Board recommended this change. 3. Page 5. Mixed use developments. Two options were considered: one option was to remove any commercial requirement, while the second option was to still require a certain amount of commercial use but enable it to be configured as the owner wishes. The Board chose to recommend the first option, removing any commercial requirement (see Board discussion on July 23, 2014). 4. Page 6. Parking standards. Option 1 on this page (line 27+) showed two concepts. One was a flat or blended parking rate (rather than the current parking standard that varies according to the individual use). The second concept was that the parking rate could vary according to whether the property fronts only on Highway 99 as opposed to other streets. The logic was that a property fronting only on 99 might have less of a concern about spill-over into the surrounding neighborhood. The Board recommended both of these changes. 5. Page 6. Parking study. Option 2 on line 30+ showed another concept, wherein a project-specific parking study could be done to determine the specific parking standards that would be applied to the development. The Board recommended this change, adding a requirement that public notice be given via a staff Type 2 decision process. 6. Page 7. This was a minor change to reflect a bonus for parking that is not located on the ground floor of a building... either below or above the ground floor. The Board recommended this change. Attachments Exhibit 1: Planning Board recommended CG zone text changes Exhibit 2: Meeting minutes Exhibit 3: CG amendments - PB hearing draft Exhibit 4: Parking comparisons Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/21/2014 12:01 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/21/2014 01:24 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/21/2014 01:39 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/21/2014 11:11 AM Final Approval Date: 08/21/2014  Packet Page 168 of 212 Chapter 16.60 2 CG – GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES Sections: 4 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. 16.60.005 Purposes. 6 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 8 16.60.020 Site development standards – General. 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 10 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 16.60.000 12 CG and CG2 zones. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two dis-14 tinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in ECDC 16.60.020(A). [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16 16.60.005 Purposes. 18 The CG and CG2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: 20 A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city. Mixed-use and transit-oriented developments are 22 encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall mixed development scheme. 24 B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to 26 support business and economic development. C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 28 corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development 30 should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. 32 D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. Where 34 designated in the comprehensive plan, the zoning should encourage mixed-use or taller high-rise development to occur. 36 E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect resi- dential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian 38 connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. 40 F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the 42 overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins Packet Page 169 of 212 residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) 2 and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned properties. 4 G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for 6 business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and 8 landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. 10 H. Within the corridor, high-rise nodes designated in the comprehensive plan should provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should 12 be: 1. Supported by adequate services and facilities; 14 2. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar 16 techniques; 3. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, 18 transit and pedestrian access; 4. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential 20 neighborhoods. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.010 22 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 24 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifi- cally prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this 26 section; 2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this sec-28 tion or limited by subsection (D) of this section; 3. Halfway houses; 30 4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, 32 and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 34 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted 36 primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or garden/nursery sales. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall 38 be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone contained in this chapter. 40 C. Prohibited Uses. 1. Residential uses located within the first or second story of any structure in areas 42 designated “Highway 99 Corridor” or “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map. There are two exceptions to this prohibition: 44 a. Residential uses may be allowed as part of large-scale mixed-use developments, as described in ECDC 16.60.020(B); and 46 Packet Page 170 of 212 b. Residential uses are allowed on the second floor of buildings that are not 2 located in areas designated as “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map and which are not located on lots that have frontage on Highway 99. 4 21. Mobile home parks. 32. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not 6 secondary to a permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this 8 type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 10 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.015 12 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the 14 development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the 16 following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or 18 educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar 20 facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health-related 22 purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. 24 A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are 26 met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the 28 following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: 30 a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 32 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city 34 limits: a. A public park; 36 b. A public library; c. A nursery school or preschool; 38 d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily 40 for religious worship; and f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, 42 public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; 44 g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and 46 Packet Page 171 of 212 i. A public hospital or hospital district. 2 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. 4 B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection 6 (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section, to the nearest physical point of the tenant 8 space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance From Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the sep-10 aration requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 12 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of 14 visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of 16 the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent 18 and surrounding land uses; 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented 20 business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse sec-22 ondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. 24 The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. 26 [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.020 28 Site development standards – General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as 30 follows: 32 Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side/Rear Setback Maximum Height Maximum Floor Area CG None None 10’; 4′ for car dealerships2 None1 60′3 None CG2 None None 10’; 4′ for car dealerships2 None1 75′3 None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by 34 any other provision of this code. 2 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 36 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. 38 Packet Page 172 of 212 B. Mixed-Use Developments. 2 1. A mixture of commercial and residential uses, including residential uses located on the first or second floors of buildings, may be permitted for developments meeting the 4 following requirements: a. The proposed development’s combined site area is at least two acres. 6 b. Floor area equivalent to the combined total leasable area of the first (ground) floor for all buildings located on the site is devoted to commercial use. This commercial floor 8 area may be provided in any manner desirable on-site, except that for all buildings oriented to and facing frontage streets the street-facing portions of the ground floor shall 10 be occupied by commercial uses. Parking area(s) are excluded from this calculation. This requirement is not intended to require commercial uses facing service drives, alleys, or 12 other minor access easements that are not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 14 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 16 Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone or 75 feet in height in the 18 CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG 20 or CG2 zone must meet the design standards contained in this section. A. Screening and Buffering. 22 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights-of-way shall not 24 exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. 26 b. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building setback. 28 c. Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. 30 d. Landscape buffers shall be integrated into the design and layout of water detention and treatment elements, to minimize the physical and visual impacts of the 32 water quality elements. e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. 34 f. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet 36 in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-38 family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. 40 h. Type I landscaping is required for office and multifamily projects adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in 42 height and continuous in length. i. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or 44 multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six-foot-high concrete wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements 46 Packet Page 173 of 212 shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to 2 single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. 4 j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single- family zones. 6 k. When no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping three feet in width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. 8 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street 10 frontages. b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the 12 public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls, 14 ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque, iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque, or 16 iv. Type III landscaping. B. Access and Parking. 18 1. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building’s front facade and the primary street. 20 1. Parking shall be provided at the following ratios: 22 Site with street frontage adjoining only CG or CG2 zones Site with street frontage adjoining any other zone (other than CG or CG2) Non-Residential Uses 1 space per 600 sq. ft. of leasable building space 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of leasable building space Residential Uses 1 space per dwelling unit Parking as required for RM zones As an alternative to using the parking table provided above, a project-specific study 24 may be conducted to determine the appropriate required parking for the development. The study shall be completed and paid for by the proponent, and may be approved by the 26 City as a Type 2 decision if the study demonstrates that appropriate examples or parking studies for similar developments show that anticipated parking demand can be 28 accommodated on-site. 30 2. Location of parking. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building’s front facade and the primary street. Parking lots 32 may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. 3. Paths within Parking Lots. 34 a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in 36 textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers. Packet Page 174 of 212 b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within 2 parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on-site buildings as well as pedestrian walkways that border the development. 4 c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on each side or have curb stops at each stall in the parking lot on one side and four feet of 6 planting on the second side. d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a mini-8 mum of every 100 feet. 4. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground FloorGrade. 10 a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below grade or above the ground floor or under of the building, the following code requirements may be 12 modified for the parking that is provided below grade or under-building: i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. 14 ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. iii. A mixture of full- and reduced-width parking stalls may be provided 16 without meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could be provided at full-width dimensions. 18 5. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: 20 a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. 22 b. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off-site. c. Only one direct entrance or exit from the drive-through shall be allowed as a 24 separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the drive-through shall be internal to the site. 26 6. Pedestrian and Transit Access. a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to 28 adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to 30 existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking 32 in the parking or access areas. c. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, 34 pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are required. 36 C. Site Design and Layout. 1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, 38 then their location on the site design should not be uniform in its layout. If a project has a uniform site layout for parking and open spaces, then the buildings shall vary in form, 40 materials, and/or identity. The following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least five of the elements were used to vary the design of 42 the site: a. Building massing and unit layout, 44 b. Placement of structures and setbacks, c. Lo cation of pedestrian and vehicular facilities, 46 d. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, Packet Page 175 of 212 e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, 2 f. Types of building materials and/or elements, g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 4 2. Individuality for Particular Structures. If a project contains several new or old buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create 6 identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: a. Individual entry design for each building. 8 b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, open spaces, and the street. 10 c. Create variety through facade materials and organization. d. Create variety through roof forms. 12 e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and appearance. 14 3. Lighting. a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This 16 may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full “cut off” fixtures. b. Parking lots shall have lighting poles with a maximum of 25 feet in height. 18 c. Pedestrian ways shall have low height lighting focused on pathway area. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. 20 d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the build- ing/canopy. 22 D. Building Design and Massing. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct “base” and “top.” A “base” and “top” 24 can be emphasized in different ways, such as masonry pattern, more architectural detail, step-backs and overhangs, lighting, recesses, visible “plinth” above which the wall rises, 26 storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 28 2. In buildings with footprints of over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be given to scale, massing, and facade design so as to reduce the effect of large single 30 building masses. Ways to accomplish this can include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, setbacks, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. This 32 can also be accomplished by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. Note that facade offsets or step-backs should not be applied to the 34 ground floor of street-front facades in pedestrian-oriented zones or districts. 3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: 36 a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space which may substitute for a massing requirement if the space is at least 1,000 square feet in area. In commercial 38 zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables, planters and other elements. 40 b. Retaining or reusing an historic structure listed on the National Register or the Edmonds register of historic places. Any addition or new building on the site must be 42 designed to be compatible with the historic structure. 4. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting 44 streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating 46 at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: Packet Page 176 of 212 a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). 2 b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. c. Belt courses of a different texture and color. 4 d. Projecting cornice. e. Projecting metal canopy. 6 f. Decorative tilework. g. Trellis containing planting. 8 h. Medallions. i. Artwork or wall graphics. 10 j. Vertical differentiation. k. Li ghting fixtures. 12 l. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. [Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 14 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 16 A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 18 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 20 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 22 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 24 6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 26 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of 28 Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Interim Use Status – Public Markets. 30 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a 32 temporary use. As a temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is uti-34 lized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards 36 established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 38 Packet Page 177 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 3 the smaller lots would become nonconforming if they become “lots of record.” Mr. Lien answered that the majority of the small lots would meet the area standards, but some are short on width. However, there is one situation where the Planning Board denied a subdivision application in the early 1970’s because the parcels were well below the standard, but shortly after that, the parcels were divided and sold anyway. Most of the lots are already developed. Even those that do not meet the dimensional standards could obtain “lot of record” status, but they would be subject to the current zoning standards at the time of a building permit. Board Member Ellis summarized that the provision is basically an amnesty program for the innocent purchaser. Mr. Lien recommended the Board forward the proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED. CHAIR CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REGARDING DEFINITION OF LOT, LOT OF RECORD, AND INNOCENT PURCHASER PROCESS (FILE NUMBER AMD20140001) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES Mr. Chave explained that this is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the ECDC modifying the provisions of the CG and CG2 zones. The amendments focus on two sets of changes:  Parking. The parking standards for all CG-zoned properties would be set at a uniform standard (1 space per 400 square feet of leasable building space). The parking standard could be further reduced (1 space per 600 square feet of leasable building space) for properties that only have frontage adjoining other CG zones. The proposed amendment would also provide for development-specific parking studies. Mr. Chave explained that the proposed amendment is an attempt to address the problems that occur when parking standards vary according to different kinds of uses. Staff has generally found that a blended parking rate works better and removes obstacles for businesses changing hands. He explained that many of the City’s current standards come from the 1960s and 1970s when individual parking standards were widely used. This approach has resulted in a lot of empty parking space because the standards were set to accommodate peak use. Not only does this leave a lot vacant asphalt the majority of the year, it does not accommodate the notion that uses are set up to perform differently, even in the same use classifications. The once-size-fits-all approach does not necessary work well.  Uses. The amendment would remove the requirement for two floors of commercial space within all CG developments. A range of options are being considered, such as no commercial space requirement or a general commercial space requirement that could be distributed in any manner desired within the overall development. Mr. Chave explained that, right now, there is a general prohibition of residential uses in the first and second floors of any development in the CG zones, with the exception of very large developments (2 or more acres). He reminded the Board that the City’s long-standing policy has talked about a mixture of uses. With increased availability and usage of transit, such as the Swift Bus Rapid Transit System, jurisdictions up and down the corridor have been doing a quite a bit of planning in recent years to encourage more mixed use, transit-friendly development. He also reminded the Board that much of the City’s capacity to accommodate its residential and commercial growth targets is focused on the Highway 99 Corridor. He suggested the time is ripe to remove the two-story commercial requirement. He recalled recent discussions that Board has had with the Highway 99 Task Force, who has indicated support for removing the requirement to encourage more residential development. It was suggested that having more residential development along the corridor would result in more eyes on the street with an emphasis on safety and mixed use. Packet Page 178 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 4 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED. Board Member Ellis asked if the proposed amendments would make Edmonds’ portion of the highway consistent with parcels on either side in Shoreline and Lynnwood. Mr. Chave said staff has not done a thorough investigation of the zoning on the Shoreline and Lynnwood segments of the highway. However, he does not believe that either have a two-story commercial requirement. Board Member Ellis said he is not concerned about small differences in zoning, but he doesn’t want the City’s zoning to be too different from the zoning on the Shoreline and Lynnwood segments. Mr. Chave said he would be concerned about chopping up the zoning in the Edmonds segment, but he is not as concerned that the Edmonds segment is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions. He recalled discussions the City had with Lynnwood years ago regarding compatibility between the two segments that resulted in some general guidelines. Lynnwood has taken the next step to push the mixed-use, transit-oriented development idea forward, and the City of Edmonds is playing catch up to some degree. Board Member Robles asked if the proposed amendments are an attempt to apply form-based code to the properties along Highway 99. Mr. Chave said not at this point. Board Member Robles asked if parking on the first floor would constitute a commercial use. Mr. Chave answered that parking would be allowed on the first floor, but it would not count as part of the commercial use requirement. If the Board recommends the option of requiring the equivalent of half or one floor of commercial space, a development that provides parking on the ground floor would have to locate the commercial space elsewhere in the building. While the proposed amendment would offer flexibility to developers, it would not be considered a form-based code because it does not address location of buildings, relationship to the street, etc. He acknowledged that there are some design standards for the CG zones, but they are fairly limited. The Board would likely consider a more form-based code approach in future discussions about potential amendments that encourage transit-oriented development along the corridor. He noted that the Development Services Director intends request funding to start this work in 2015. The Board reviewed the proposed amendments as follows:  ECDC 16.60.010.C. This amendment would remove the general prohibition of residential uses on the first and second story of any structure. The code would provide for specific criteria for mixed-use development, but without the general residential prohibition. The Board Members concurred with this proposed amendment.  ECDC 16.60.020.A. The minimum street setback requirements would be amended to re-establish a larger standard setback for other uses while retaining the 4-foot setback for car dealerships. Chair Cloutier asked if this change could be a problem if uses change. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate future problems. The buildings associated with car dealerships are set back, with rows of cars along the street. The Board Members concurred with this proposed amendment.  ECDC 16.60.020.B. There are two options being considered related to mixed-use developments. One option would remove any commercial requirement, and the second option would still require a certain amount of commercial use but enable it to be configured as the owner wishes. Board Member Ellis expressed concern that eliminating the commercial requirement entirely could diminish the commercial presence on Highway 99. Chair Cloutier noted that it could also end up enhancing the commercial presence. He noted that mandating commercial space on Highway 99 has not been successful to this point. Although he doesn’t feel strongly either way, Board Member Ellis indicated his preference for scaling back the commercial requirement as an incremental step. He said he is unclear on what impact either option would have on future development along the corridor. Chair Cloutier agreed but said he supports allowing more flexibility to developers within the boundaries set forth by the zoning code. Mr. Chave reported that the City has received a number of inquiries from people wanting to add to their existing properties. For example, an owner of a multi-family residential development wanted to construct a new building, but the commercial requirement killed the project. Just last week, the City received an inquiry from a developer who was looking for six to eight acres to construct a large multi-family residential project. While he indicated a willingness to provide some commercial space, he was not supportive of a large commercial/residential mixed-use development. Packet Page 179 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 5 Board Member Ellis asked Mr. Chave which option would best satisfy the goal of creating mixed-use development. Mr. Chave said either option would be justifiable. Starting with a scaled-back version (half equivalent) would preserve commercial space and open the area up for more options. Removing the commercial requirement entirely would also work simply because the area is already heavily developed with commercial uses and it would be a long time before it would tip the other way to become predominantly residential. If this trend does occur, the code could be adjusted accordingly to correct the problem. The City has been pointing towards Highway 99, with unlimited heights, to accommodate much of its allocated growth. However, there are very few residential units in the CG zone, and it is not likely developers will construct residential units given the current two-story commercial requirement. Board Member Robles asked what the “sweet spot” would be for the appropriate amount of commercial versus residential development. Mr. Chave said it would be different for every developer, depending on their experience, how much money they have, etc. Again, he said either option would work, but he cautioned that requiring the equivalent of one floor of commercial space might not be viable. Board Member Robles asked if the City wants to distinguish its segment of Highway 99 so that people know they are entering the City. Chair Cloutier pointed out that Highway 99 has its own character, and it would not be practical to think the Edmonds segment could be its own center. They did add some signage to recognize the international neighborhood, but he cautioned against changing the standards significantly so that the Edmonds segment of Highway 99 is substantially different. Mr. Chave recalled a proposal that was previously presented by the Behar Company for a mixed-use development for property on Highway 99. While Mr. Behar was not opposed to providing commercial space in the first two floors of each building, he has been unable to find a developer interested in the project. This supports the proposal to reduce or eliminate the commercial requirement. Chair Cloutier added that having a commercial requirement limits a property owner’s ability to fill the space, which is essentially an added tax to the property. If there is a demand, developers will build commercial space. If there is not a demand, he questioned why the City should force it. He noted there is not a lack of commercial space on Highway 99 now, and eliminating the commercial requirement would not change the area overnight. Mr. Chave said he does not envision Highway 99 ever becoming a series of apartment blocks without the support of commercial businesses. He anticipates more residential development along the corridor, and this will most likely be accompanied by commercial development whether it is mandated or not. Chair Cloutier said that would be particularly true for the transit corridors. He cautioned against slowing down development by requiring an ideal that is not realistic or feasible. Again, Mr. Chave reminded the Board that change will not happen quickly even if the amendments are adopted, and there will be time for the City to adjust the commercial requirement in the future if needed. Mr. Chave also reminded the Board of the Highway 99 Task Force’s recommendation that there needs to be more residential development in order for Highway 99 to be a successful corridor. Currently, there are commercial properties that do not contribute in terms of safety, attractiveness, etc. Chair Cloutier pointed out the recent improvements on Shoreline’s segment of Highway 99. The do not have a commercial requirement, and the newer residential and commercial developments have improved the quality of that segment of the corridor. Noting that four Board Members were absent, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board postpone their recommendation on the proposed amendments until all Board Members have an opportunity to weigh in on the issues, particularly related to the commercial use requirement. She said she would also be interested in feedback from the Highway 99 Task Force and Economic Development Commission. Chair Cloutier referred to minutes from the Board’s joint meeting with the Highway 99 Task Force. He noted that the Task Force specifically asked the Board to address the parking and commercial use requirements, as they believe the current requirements stifle development on Highway 99. Board Member Ellis said the Board’s discussion has persuaded him to support elimination of the commercial requirement altogether, with the idea that change would happen slowly and the City could revisit the issue if necessary. While he is prepared to make a recommendation, he would also support postponing the recommendation until a future meeting. Packet Page 180 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 6 Chair Cloutier said he is in favor of moving forward with a recommendation now. While he believes either approach to the commercial use requirement would be acceptable, he prefers to eliminate the requirement entirely. While the absent Board Members have not publicly voiced their specific preference, he recalled that all Board Members indicated support for reducing and/or eliminating the requirement at their last discussion. While he leans towards supporting elimination of the commercial requirement, Board Member Ellis cautioned that he sensed some push back from some City Council Members about any amendment that would lessen the commercial character of Highway 99. Chair Cloutier referred to the minutes from the Board’s joint meeting with the Highway 99 Task Force, where it was discussed that improving the residential housing opportunities would also improve the character and quality of the commercial development along the highway. Mr. Chave recalled that at the City Council’s retreat, there was strong consensus for making adjustments to the CG and CG2 zoning, but there may be differences of opinion on which way to go. The majority of the Board indicated support for eliminating the commercial requirement altogether (Option 1). However, Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her preference for scaling back, but not eliminating the requirement (Option 2).  ECDC 16.60.030.B. There are two options being considered, and Option 1 shows two concepts. One is a flat parking rate for commercial uses rather than the current parking standard that varies according to the individual use. The second concept is that the parking rate could vary according to whether the property fronts only on Highway 99 as opposed to other streets. The logic is that a property fronting only on Highway 99 might have less of a concern about spill-over into the surrounding neighborhoods. Option 2 shows another concept, wherein a project-specific parking study could be done to determine the specific parking standards that would be applied to a development. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 5, which provides a comparison of parking standards from surrounding communities to illustrate that the table values are not out of line. For properties adjoining any other zone than CG and CG2, the proposed parking requirement for non-residential uses would be 1 space per 400 square feet of leasable building space, and the parking requirement for residential uses would be consistent with what is required in the multi-family zone. For properties with street frontage adjoining only CG and CG2 zones, the proposed parking requirement for nonresidential properties would be 1 space per 600 square feet of leasable building space and the parking requirement for residential uses would be 1 space per dwelling unit. The more flexible standard would not be necessary if the Board recommends allowing developers to submit project-specific studies to determine the appropriate required parking for the development. The Board indicated support for the table (Option 1), as well as allowing for project-specific studies (Option 2). The Board requested information regarding the review process for project-specific parking studies. Mr. Chave advised that, as currently proposed in ECDC 16.60.030, Architectural Design Board review would be required for any project exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone and 75 feet in height in the CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. He concluded that most projects would not exceed this height limit, so ADB review and public notice would not be required. The Board agreed that project-specific parking studies should be a Type II Decision, which would be a staff decision with a public notice requirement. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CG AND CG2 ZONES AS PRESENTED, INCLUDING:  REMOVAL OF THE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND STORY OF ANY STRUCTURE (ECDC 16.60.010.C)  RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LARGER STANDARD SETBACK FOR OTHER USES WHILE RETAINING THE 4-FOOT SETBACK FOR CAR DEALERSHIPS (ECDC 16.60.020.A) Packet Page 181 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 7  ELIMINATION OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SPACE AS PER OPTION 1 (ECDC 16.60.020.B).  SETTING A FLAT PARKING STANDARD AS PER OPTION 1 (ECDC 16.60.030.B) ALLOWING A MORE FLEXIBLE STANDARD FOR PROPERTIES THAT ADJOIN ONLY CG AND CG2 ZONES. ALSO ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO DO PROJECT-SPECIFIC PARKING STUDIES AS PER OPTION 2 TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE PROJECT. LANGUAGE SHOULD BE ADDED TO OPTION 2 TO MAKE PARKING STUDIES TYPE II DECISIONS. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Rubenkonig once against stated that she is not in favor of eliminating the general commercial requirement altogether. She believes the incremental approach outlined in Option 2 of ECDC 16.60.020.B would be more appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board reviewed their extended agenda, noting that their work for the remainder of the year will focus on various elements of the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Chave explained that much of the emphasis will be on the land use element and updating data to adopt the new growth targets. He said he does not anticipate any wholesale changes in land use patterns. Chair Cloutier recalled the Board’s retreat discussion about issues in the code they should focus on in order to streamline and simplify the application and review processes by removing ambiguities. He suggested that these issues should be added to the extended agenda, as well. Mr. Chave reported that staff made a presentation to the City Council on July 22nd regarding the upcoming Critical Areas Ordinance update. They are beginning the process of advertising for a consultant to get the project started, but the Board probably won’t see a lot of information until November or December. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier said he understands Board Member Rubenkonig’s concern about being called upon to vote on matters that were discussed prior to her joining the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is also concerned about taking action when only half of the Board Members are present. Chair Cloutier pointed out that the Board had two previous discussions about the items on the agenda, and he felt comfortable moving them forward. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Robles pointed out that eliminating the commercial requirement in the CG and CG2 zones will allow the City to collect clear information on what the market wants. From that, they can make a logical decision about cutting back. However, he also expressed some caution against the over concentration of housing. Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she attended the event celebrating the new historical signage on Fourth Avenue. At the event, she was invited by Frances Chapin and Carrie Hite to participate in the stakeholder meetings regarding the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor as a representative of the Planning Board. She advised that she attended the group’s last meeting on July 22nd and will share more information at a future date. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Packet Page 182 of 212 Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 9 Board Member Ellis questioned the benefit of requiring an applicant to record a lot’s status on the property description or title. Whether a lot is developable or not is not an element of the title. This information needs to be discovered by a prospective buyer’s due diligence. Mr. Lien clarified that, as discussed, the information would not be recorded on the actual property title. It would be filed as a separate document that is part of the County’s record for that parcel. Board Member Ellis said he is not in favor of requiring the City to file a document to certify that a property has been classified as a “lot of record.” This should be a requirement of the property owner. The majority of the Board supported the idea of requiring the applicant to file a document with Snohomish County when the status of a lot is changed from illegal to a “lot of record.” They also pointed out that Item A.6 is not one of the criteria for establishing a “lot of record.” They agreed that the section should be reformatted to change Item A.6, to Item B and then add the requirement that documents be filed with the County as Item C. Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to describe the review process for Type II decisions. Mr. Lien said Type II decisions are staff decisions that require a public notice. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject property would receive notice of the proposed action, and the public would be given an opportunity to provide comments before a decision is made. In Type II decisions, staff can impose conditions to help mitigate potential impacts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City Attorney has provided input on the proposed amendments. Mr. Lien answered that staff worked with the City Attorney to draft the proposed language. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the draft amendments for July 23, 2014. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON HIGHWAY 99 ZONING Mr. Chave advised that this is a continuation of the Board’s May 14th discussion about potential zoning text changes for the General Commercial (CG) and CG2 zones along Highway 99. He reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board directed staff to prepare draft amendments that would remove the second story commercial requirement and streamline parking standards. He referred to the draft code amendments for Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.60 (Attachment 1 of the Staff Report), which outlines some ideas for potential code amendments that can serve as a guide for the Board’s continued discussion. He specifically reviewed the following ideas:  Eliminate ECDC 16.60.010.C, which is the general prohibition of residential uses on the first and second story of any structure.  The table in ECDC 16.60.020.A could be amended to change the setback requirement on Highway 99. The current four- foot setback was intended to accommodate car dealerships. The Board could consider establishing a larger setback for other uses while retaining the four-foot setback for car dealerships. However, this is a housekeeping item and is not an urgent matter. The Board could address it as part of the current amendment process or postpone it until a later time.  Two options were provided for potential amendments to ECDC 16.60.020.B. Option 1 would delete the entire section, thus removing the setback requirement entirely. This would allow developers to decide what the mix of uses should be. Option 2 would scale back the area/dimensional minimums for commercial space. A certain amount of commercial use would still be required, but it could be configured however the owner wishes. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if there is a danger that significant commercial space would be lost if the commercial requirement were eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that adding residential development along Highway 99 would likely make commercial development more desirable. Vice Chair Tibbott observed that eliminating the commercial requirement would allow a property to be developed as entirely residential.  Two options were also provided for potential amendments to ECDC 16.60.030.B. Option 1 would provide a flat parking rate rather than the current parking standard that varies according to the individual use. Option 2 would have a variable parking rate based on whether the property fronts only on Highway 99 as opposed to other streets. The logic is that a property fronting only on Highway 99 might have less of a concern about spill-over parking into the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted either option could also include a provision that would allow developers to conduct project- Packet Page 183 of 212 Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 10 specific studies to determine the appropriate required parking for the development rather than using the parking table provided. The study would be completed and paid for by the proponent and must demonstrate that the anticipated parking demand can be accommodated on site. For example, an applicant could demonstrate that a lesser amount of parking is needed because of a project’s close proximity to a bus rapid transit station or because there are opportunities for shared parking. Mr. Chave encouraged the Board to consider a flat standard, at the minimum. He explained that there are numerous small businesses along Highway 99 with a lot of movement and change. It is difficult for staff to track the parking requirements as uses changes. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to eliminate the use-specific parking standards. However, before recommending approval of Option 1, they requested more information to support the flat rate number proposed by staff. Mr. Chave explained that staff has researched parking standards from other jurisdictions, particularly those related to high-density development. He agreed to share the information that has been collected to date. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed alternative (parking study) could address situations where good transit service is available to support a lower parking standard. Mr. Chave agreed. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed changes would apply to the Harbor Square property, which is also zoned CG. Mr. Chave said the Harbor Square property was zoned CG through a contract rezone, which identifies specific requirements for the site. He agreed to research the property further to determine how it could be impacted by the proposed changes. Vice Chair Tibbott expressed concern that a standard parking requirement could result in situations where there is insufficient parking to accommodate future uses. Mr. Chave said it is highly likely that parking will be part of any future purchase decision. If a developer provides too few parking spaces in an attempt to squeeze in as much building as possible, it will be difficult to sell and/or lease the property in the future. He summarized that it within everyone’s best interest to provide ample space for parking to accommodate future uses, particularly for properties along Highway 99 where there is no opportunity for spill over parking. Again, he noted that the proposed table specifies a greater parking requirement for properties that do not front on Highway6 99 to lessen the chance that overflow parking will impact the adjacent neighborhoods. He observed that, historically, developers have provided more parking than is needed. The current parking standards are based on the maximum parking need during the year, which is typically at holidays. As a result, many of the older developments have seas of parking that is underutilized most of the year and results in heat islands and excess stormwater runoff. The trend is for more transit-oriented development, shared parking, etc., and the proposed changes are intended to facilitate these concepts. The Board agreed to present both options for parking at the public hearing. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposed changes to the CG and CG2 zones on July 23rd. DIRECTOR/PLANNING MANAGER REPORT Ms. Hope provided a brief summary of her written Director’s Report, specifically noting the following:  Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan continues to move forward, and the consultant will present the 1st quarterly report to the City Council on June 24th.  The City is currently working with applicants to process development permits for the Swedish Hospital Expansion and the Post Office Mixed Use Building.  Governor Inslee recently announced this year’s “Smart Communities” awards for outstanding projects across the state. Edmonds is being recognized as a merit winner for its Strategic Action Plan. The award will be formally presented at the Association of Washington Cities Conference.  At their upcoming retreat on July 9th, the Board will discuss the Comprehensive Plan Update in more detail.  The Tree Board has selected a consultant (Elizabeth Walker) to help develop a tree code for consideration before the end of the year.  Another City (Stanwood) is opting to join the Alliance for Housing Affordability, which requires a second amendment to the City’s Interlocal Agreement.  The Edmonds Arts Festival is scheduled for June 13th through 15th. Packet Page 184 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 5 transportation. He asked if the required parking would be adequate to cover both regional and local uses. Mr. Chave explained that the parking requirement is dictated by the use (commercial and residential), and the standard does not differentiate between regional and local uses. He agreed that the highway makes it difficult to think of the Westgate area as one unit, and the plan was modified to divide it into four quadrants with distinct characteristics. While people will not likely park in one quadrant and walk across the street to another, one purpose of the plan is to improve circulation within the quadrants so they are more pedestrian friendly and encourage people to park and walk to their various destinations. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it is anticipated that the residential developments will have gated and/or secured parking areas. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, as currently proposed, there would be different parking standards for residential versus commercial uses, but it would be up to the developer to decide what works best. In recent years, developers have tended to separate the parking for residential and commercial uses, but there are some situations of shared parking, as well. Board Member Duncan recommended that rather than making the plan too specific, the Board should focus their attention on the more significant issues. For example, instead of focusing on specific parking standards based on use, they should deal with the larger issue of traffic impacts. They should leave it up to developers to ensure a project is feasible, and this includes providing adequate parking to serve both residential and commercial uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that developers must still comply with the parking requirements, but he agreed that developers have a vested interest in making sure the residents are happy and the people patronizing the businesses can get in and out. Board Member Lovell observed that the plan is intended to encourage mixed-use development with a residential component that is targeted towards less automobile use. He noted that SR-104 is a major public transportation thoroughfare and the plan should encourage transit use. The goal is to apply land use flexibility to the Westgate area, and it will be up to the market place to determine how the area will be redeveloped. Board Member Robles noted that other countries have resolved conflicts between pedestrians and automobile traffic by providing connecting walkways. Board Member Lovell said that was the initial thought with the Westgate Plan, but there is no funding to provide overpasses from one side of the highway to the other. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the regional traffic that flows through the area is most likely to stop at the gas stations, fast food restaurants and espresso stands, all of which are drive-through businesses that do not require patrons to park. The plan supports a more neighborhood type of development at Westgate. Mr. Chave clarified that the Comprehensive Plan considers the Westgate area to be more of a community and neighborhood commercial center. Regional traffic does not typically stop at Westgate, so it would not significantly contribute to the parking demand. However, people from a wider community area come to Westgate to shop at the grocery and drug stores. If the plan is intended to focus on local and community commercial development, Vice Chair Tibbott was suggested that Item C on Page 1 should be changed. It currently states that commercial development would serve a dual purpose by providing services and shopping for both local residents and regional traffic. While he supports allowing flexibility in the plan and leaving the details to developers, he cannot think of where blending local and regional commercial uses has worked especially well. Board Member Stewart pointed that people come across on the ferry to shop at the PCC. If there are more businesses put in by creative developers, the area will become more unique and attract people from around the region. The plan should be realistic and allow developers to be creative, and parking must be part of their plans. Mr. Chave agreed to update the draft plan as per the Board’s comments in preparation for the public hearing, which is scheduled for May 28th. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 99 LAND USE AND ZONING OPPORTUNITIES Mr. Chave reviewed that members of the Planning Board had an informal discussion with members of the Highway 99 Task Force on February 26th (Attachment 7) and a joint meeting with the City Council occurred on April 22nd (Attachment 8). Following the joint meeting, the City Council requested that the Planning Board review Highway 99 zoning and recommend potential changes. He recalled that during the Board’s joint meeting with the City Council, it was apparent that Highway 99 Packet Page 185 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 6 is a high priority, and much of the discussion focused on what could be done short term versus items that would need more work. He referred to Attachment 1, which outlines simple changes to the CG and CG2 zones to streamline regulations and encourage mixed-use development. They include:  Dropping the 2nd story commercial requirement or scaling back the dimensional requirement for commercial space. The current requirement of commercial space on both the 1st and 2nd floors of most development (the requirement would not apply to properties larger than 2 acres) in the CG and CG2 zones hampers the goal of enhancing Highway 99 for its development potential and encouraging residential uses. The City has received several inquiries from developers who are interested in constructing multi-family buildings along Highway 99. However, no one has pursued development after learning that two stories of commercial space are required.  Establish a consistent parking standard for all commercial development at Westgate regardless of use. The parking standard in the current code varies depending on the type of commercial use. This is problematic because the number of required parking spaces for a development changes each time a use is changed. The current requirement creates an obstacle for businesses moving into new locations, yet it has very little impact on the supply of parking after a property has been developed. Mr. Chave said longer-term opportunities include:  Create transit-oriented development nodes. This would be particularly appropriate in areas near the Swift bus stops. However, a more detailed study and significant public outreach would be required before this option could be implemented.  Complete a Planned Action. The planned action would look at a potentially larger area along Highway 99 to come up with a coordinated plan. Doing the environmental, traffic study and other regulatory work up front will make it easier for developers to know what the rules are and what they need to do. It streamlines the process and makes redevelopment more attractive. Mr. Chave recommended the Board move forward with the easier items (commercial space and parking requirements) and then move into the longer-range items that will require more work. Board Member Lovell observed that not all Councilmembers want to encourage residential development on Highway 99. Some expressed a desire that development focus on commercial uses. He said he supports moving forward quickly with the simpler changes and gauging how the market place responds. However, the Board may be spinning its wheels by addressing the long-term solutions before there is meaningful interest from developers for Highway 99. He reminded the Board that both State and regional public transit is strained right now. Community Transit previously cut back on service and is working to restore some of what was lost. The Swift line has been very successful and there is no question that Sound Transit will construct light rail to Lynnwood. He recognized that development around the light rail stations could change, but he suggested the City would be well served to wait until Sound Transit has specified the exact locations for stops. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if there would be any negative impacts associated with reducing or eliminating the requirement for commercial development. Board Member Lovell pointed out that eliminating the commercial requirement for the second floor would allow businesses to place at least one floor of residential development above their commercial space, and some property owners have expressed a desire to have this capability. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are greater for commercial uses versus residential uses. The Board agreed that there would be few negative impacts associated with the change. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Highway 99 Task Force has expressed a desire for flexible standards that allow developers to introduce more residential uses, which will generate more demand for the businesses. Mr. Chave asked the Board to provide direction on the options of eliminating the commercial requirement entirely and opening it to whatever kind of development happens or retaining a minimum level of commercial space. For example, rather than the vertical mixed-use model used in the downtown, the required commercial space could be spread throughout the development. He reminded the Board that properties along Highway 99 that are at least two acres require the equivalent of one story of commercial space, but the commercial space can be spread throughout the development. Packet Page 186 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 7 Board Member Duncan pointed out that properties without good street frontage would not be appropriate locations for retail uses. He said he is leaning towards eliminating the commercial requirement altogether. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that eliminating the commercial requirement would result in very little risk that Highway 99 would suddenly change into a residential street. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that providing more opportunities for residential development on Highway 99 could result in fewer retail and commercial uses, which would equate to a loss of tax revenue for the City. Board Member Stewart pointed out that although demand for apartments is strong right now, there will also be a need for commercial space on Highway 99. While she supports flexibility for developers to meet the market demand, it is important to keep in mind that demand will change over time. She suggested that it would be appropriate to require that buildings be constructed in such a way that allows for their adaptive reuse at some point in the future. While she expressed support for moving forward with adjustments to the commercial space requirement and the parking standards, Board Member Rubenkonig said she does not want the Board to postpone their work on other opportunities such as transit-oriented development nodes. She pointed out that the Highway 99 Task Force has expressed support for this concept, which could be considered as part of the upcoming Transportation Master Plan update. Mr. Chave clarified that he was not suggesting that the long-term options be placed on the back burner, but he wanted to make it clear that they will take a longer period of time to implement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if transit-oriented development locations have been identified in Edmonds. Mr. Chave answered that the Comprehensive Plan identifies transit-oriented development locations within a ¼-mile walking radius around the Swift Stations. Board Member Ellis asked if eliminating or altering the commercial requirement would have any impact on the existing car dealerships. Mr. Chave answered no. He emphasized that the change would not prohibit commercial buildings that are more than one story, but it would not require a second story of commercial space in order to place residential above. Board Member Ellis agreed with Board Member Lovell’s earlier statement that the City Council is not of one mind on this issue. Some want to make Highway 99 more residential friendly, and others want to leave it as commercial. Mr. Chave recommended that the draft amendment that is presented for public hearing include two options: one that would eliminate the commercial requirement entirely and another that would scale it back but not eliminate it. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Chave invited the Board to share thoughts regarding potential changes to modify and/or relax the existing parking standard. He reviewed that one option would be establish a standard, streamlined commercial parking requirement regardless of the type of use. Another option would be to include a provision that allows developers to conduct project-specific studies to determine the appropriate amount of parking for a project. He cautioned that a one-size-fits-all parking standard does not allow developers to address difficult situations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Highway 99 Task Force has recommended a different setback standard for car dealerships to allow them to display their products. Mr. Chave explained that the current parking standard does not reflect the fact that cars sitting on a lot should be considered “display of merchandise” and not “parked.” While car dealerships must provide parking spaces for customers, the parking spaces are not the same as displaying cars on lots. He suggested that clarifying this issue in the code would be useful. Board Member Stewart said she supports the idea of including a provision that allows developers to present project-specific studies to support a proposal for fewer parking spaces. For example, fewer parking spaces may be needed based on the location of a development near a Swift station and given the trend in the younger generation to enjoy not having cars and living in smaller units. If a developer feels that is something the market would support, approval should be left to the discretion of staff. Mr. Chave referred to the table on Page 6 of Attachment 1, which identifies a greater parking requirement for sites with street frontage adjoining any zone other than CG and CG2. He explained that a more relaxed and streamlined parking requirement would make sense for properties that focus on Highway 99 because there would be very little chance for spillover parking into the neighborhoods. However, a stricter standard might be appropriate for properties located on the periphery and closer Packet Page 187 of 212 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 8 to neighborhoods. He specifically asked the Board to comment on whether or not they wanted to differentiate the parking standard based on a property’s location. Board Member Robles commented that it doesn’t make sense to have different standards based on types of commercial uses. Mr. Chave agreed and said reviewing business license applications would be much easier using a standard parking requirement for all commercial uses. While they agreed that further discussion was needed regarding potential amendments to the parking standards, the Board indicated general support for modifying or relaxing the requirement as discussed by staff. They asked staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would create a standard parking requirement for all commercial uses, including a provision that would allow a developer to submit a site-specific study showing how fewer parking spaces would meet the anticipated demand. Board Member Ellis requested more information about the Draft BR Zone (Attachment 2). Mr. Chave explained that the Highway 99 Activity Center actually calls for a mixture of different zoning. Although many of the sites are developed with medical uses, the current zoning is primarily multi-family. The original idea was to change the zoning from RM to BR to recognize the fact that the medical facilities are already there and eliminate the need for medical uses to obtain conditional use permits. While this concept needs further study, it should not be forgotten as a potential option. Board Member Lovell requested more information creating a CG3 Zone (Attachment 3). Mr. Chave said the Highway 99 Task Force discussed the idea of creating a new CG3 zone, which would be applied to the back side of the CG zone where multi-family zoning is currently located. The CG3 zone would better address the issue of transition, too. He suggested the Board keep this concept in mind for future consideration. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the current code includes provisions relative to maintaining median or landscape strips between the parking lots and sidewalks. Mr. Chave answered that landscaping is addressed in a separate section of the code. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the public has responded to the concept of form-based codes. While form-based design is a shift away from traditional zoning, she suggested that it may not be necessary to specifically recognize proposed changes as form-based. Rather than being a driving force, form-based standards could be considered as one option when proposing design standard changes. Mr. Chave clarified that the City’s general approach is not to do full form-based zoning, but instead use a blend of form-based and traditional zoning. The term form-based code has been used by the City for years, and they haven’t heard a lot of push back on the concept. The apprehension is more closely related to the impacts created by more development. Vice Chair Tibbott said that some people have requested more information about form-based codes, but as the Board has discussed zoning changes over the past three years, the phrase has become part of their vocabulary. Those who have been involved in the process have a clear understanding of its meaning. Mr. Chave recalled that at the last public hearing on Westgate, he provided a lengthy presentation about the form-based code approach, and he could do the same at the upcoming public hearing. Mr. Chave left the meeting at 9:00 p.m. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Ms. Hope reviewed the extended agenda, noting that a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form-based code is scheduled for May 28th, along with continued discussion on Highway 99 zoning. A discussion on the Development Code rewrite is also tentatively scheduled for May 28th. The June 11th meeting agenda will include a continued discussion on legal lot issues and potential code amendments in preparation for a public hearing that is tentatively scheduled for June 25th. The Board would also continue their discussions about the code rewrite and Highway 99 zoning at the two meetings in June. Board Member Lovell requested an update on the Development Code rewrite project. Ms. Hope advised that staff plans to outline the proposed work plan in a workshop discussion with the Board in May or June. She reported that some work has been done to identify legal and procedural issues and where there are conflicts and overlaps in the code. However, there is still funding to hire a consultant to help with a bigger part of the update. Packet Page 188 of 212 BOARD SHALL PREPARE AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL A HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE CITY. Council President Buckshnis explained this was discussed by Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. Issues raised included whether the Heritage Tree agreement remained when a property was sold, etc. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. APPROVAL OF SHORESHIRE FINAL PLAT AT 24223-24227 76TH AVE W PROPOSED BY ARDSLEY HOMES (FILE # PLN20080046) This item was removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled to a future meeting. 11. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS CODE UPDATE PROCESS, INCLUDING SIGNAGE, HIGHWAY 99, AND SUBDIVISIONS Planning Board Members present were Todd Cloutier (Chair), Neil Tibbott (Vice Chair), William Ellis, Phil Lovell and Val Stewart. Mayor Earling advised there were currently two vacancies on the Planning Board. There are four applicants and he was hopeful they could be interviewed and appointed in the next weeks. Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed the agenda for tonight’s discussion: • Overview • Sign code • Highway 99 • MP2 Zone • Development Code update Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced the sign code, explaining one citizen in particular has highlighted issues related to temporary signs. The Council has had some interest in the Planning Board reviewing temporary sign regulations although that has been controversial issue in the past. Staff would like the Planning Board to consider how to better organize the sign code and to update definitions. Council President Buckshnis asked if the above list was prioritized. Mr. Chave answered no and suggested this would be an opportunity for the Council to prioritize the issues. Council President Buckshnis noted she has also received emails and comments from citizens who do not object to the sandwich board signs. She spoke in favor of making the sign code more comprehensive. Mr. Chave agreed it can be difficult to piece together the overall intent of the sign code and there are some conflicting regulations and definitions. Council President Buckshnis suggested in the order of priority, the sign code would be number 3. Councilmember Peterson commented Highway 99 and the development code update were higher priorities. He agreed the sign code is controversial and did not want to divert attention away from higher priorities. He suggested the sign code could be addressed as part of the development code update. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the only issue with the sign code was sandwich-board signs. Mr. Chave answered that is the only issue that members of the public have highlighted. There are many other issues from staff’s perspective. The sign code is not user friendly and it is difficult to direct people with regard to how the sign code affects their business. He agreed the sign code could be part of the code rewrite but the Council has expressed some interest in a policy related to temporary signs. Packet Page 189 of 212 Councilmember Bloom asked whether sandwich board signs were the only type of temporary sign. Mr. Chave answered there are a series of temporary signs such as real estate, campaign, on and off premise signs; it is a complicated issue and there are constitutional, freedom of speech issues. Councilmember Petso suggested developing sign regulations for different areas of the City. For example a sandwich board sign on a downtown sidewalk may be a higher level of inconvenience than a sandwich board sign on a median near Firdale Village. She also suggested the use of neon signs in small neighborhood business zones and downtown be discussed. Mr. Chave agreed sign regulations should be tailored to the location. With regard to Highway 99, Mr. Chave displayed a zoning map of Highway 99, explaining there are some short term issues that are barriers to development on Highway 99 such as second story use, mixed use, and parking standards that the Planning Board could address more quickly. Longer term issues that would require further study and public outreach include Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and nodes of development along the corridor. Mr. Chave displayed an MP2 zone map, explaining neither WSDOT/Washington State Ferries nor Chevron are opposed to removing residential uses from the MP2 zone long as the zoning still allows the multimodal project. He suggested the Planning Board consider that proposal. With regard to the development code update, Development Services Director Shane Hope explained there are a number of issues in the development code. She suggested the Planning Board develop a proposal, schedule and approach and present it to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested the Planning Board could also help scope the project. Ms. Hope noted work has been done by a consultant to identify issues and that effort has also raised a number of questions. Council President Buckshnis recalled discussion at the retreat that the subdivision code would be included in the development code update. Ms. Hope agreed it would be. She suggested the Planning Board would help with developing an approach and priority, present that to the City Council for approval and then proceed based on Council direction. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the issues raised by the consultant, Carol Morris, would also be included. Ms. Hope agreed Ms. Morris’ input would also be considered. Councilmember Petso suggested there was a great deal of history in the code provisions and why they read the way they do which Ms. Morris was not aware of such as community facilities and home occupations. Mr. Chave noted Ms. Morris does not know the history but her comments highlight code sections that are unclear. Councilmember Petso suggested for sections that have revised recently, the language be clarified to match the intent rather than completely rewriting it. Councilmember Petso cited the importance of preserving Highway 99 as a functional business area. She recalled a proposed project at Highway 99 & 220th that included residential, parking for the residential, viable commercial space with parking in front, and public gathering spaces. She preferred that type of development that allowed Highway 99 to accommodate housing but also remain a viable commercial district versus other types of vertical mixed use seen in downtown and other areas of Edmonds. She pointed out the value of residential is so high that there is not a market incentive for developers to make the commercial space viable. She recommended including language regarding viable commercial space and viable commercial parking to ensure a viable commercial presence on Highway 99. Council President Buckshnis spoke in favor of addressing barriers to development on Highway 99 such as a second floor of commercial in the CG and CG2 zones. Mr. Chave explained the mixed use concept in the Edmonds Green development that Councilmember Petso described at Highway 99 & 220th was quite Packet Page 190 of 212 different than vertical mixed use that has been developed downtown. The mixed use proposed in the Edmonds Green development was appropriate to the location on the site. For example residential was toward the rear away from the street and commercial was oriented to the travel lanes. The Planning Board could investigate what type of mixed use makes the most sense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Highway 99 was her top priority. She cited uses such as Sound Transit Swift buses, development in the Medical District, and Premera, yet there is no housing in the area. The housing is going to Lynnwood, Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. She was concerned that if Edmonds did not get moving, many development opportunities on Highway 99 would be missed. Residential on Highway 99 would provide more eyes on the street and create a more protective environment for the areas around Highway 99. During a ridealong with Edmonds Police last Friday night, they spent a great deal of time on Highway 99. Development in Shoreline and Lynnwood is pushing criminal elements to the Edmonds section of Highway 99. She noted Top Foods is a high crime area at night. She anticipated residential on Highway 99 would result in less crime. Councilmember Johnson relayed the Planning Board had a joint meeting with the Highway 99 Task Force recently and the Task Force met again last night. She suggested there are three levels of priority for Highway 99, 1) things that can be accomplished easily such as parking standards and the second floor commercial requirement, 2) transit nodes ¼ mile from Swift stations, and 3) the corridor as a whole. Councilmember Bloom agreed with the concept of horizontal mixed use on Highway 99 versus vertical mixed use. She recalled comments that developers did not do mixed use well; they typically specialize in either residential or commercial. She asked what revision of the subdivision code would entail. Ms. Hope answered it would include the process and criteria for short plats, PRDs, long plat formal subdivisions, etc. Councilmember Bloom viewed revision of the subdivision code as a high priority. Councilmember Bloom explained the issue of the MP2 zone arose out of a conversation with the Department of Ecology (DOE) about public space or open space in the MP2 zone. WSDOT and Unocal attended 2-3 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee where it was discussed. WSDOT is in escrow with Unocal to purchase the property. WSDOT does not need residential for that property but wants commercial in the event it is used for a future Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Chave advised the zone assumed a certain level of clean-up; residential was not allowed on the first floor. Councilmember Bloom advised the existing zoning would allow residential on upper floors but residential is not needed if the property is used for the Edmonds Crossing in the future. She was encouraged that WSDOT was considering Edmonds Crossing because it is not in the State’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave explained the recommendation related to the MP2 zone was not a change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning, only an amendment to the MP2 zoning classification to remove residential uses. Councilmember Bloom viewed this as a high priority as it is a simple fix, provides exactly what WSDOT needs and would not interfere with WSDOT’s purchase. Councilmember Petso agreed with amending the MP2 zone to remove residential uses because residential uses will not be needed if the property is used for a ferry terminal. She did not agree with making quick changes to the requirement for second floor commercial and the parking standards on Highway 99 and preferred a holistic review of development patterns on Highway 99. Council President Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Petso’s comments about not making quick changes to Highway 99. She also disagreed with making changes to the MP2 zone when the property sale is in escrow. She ranked the items as follows: 1) Highway 99, 2) development code update and revisions to the subdivision code, 3) sign code, and 4) MP2 zone. Packet Page 191 of 212 Councilmember Peterson commented although the change to the MP2 zone may be simple, he feared it could affect the process. He questioned the rush if WSDOT was purchasing the property and they have no interest in residential. He noted revisions to Highway 99 were a high priority in the Strategic Plan and preferred the Planning Board focus their efforts on Highway 99 and the development code update. Planning Board Chair Todd Cloutier commented the items on the list were not new other than the MP2 zone. He did not recommend the Council rank the four items in priority; they will be divided into pieces and addressed. He suggested the Council identify issues in the development code they would like to have addressed first, noting the sign code could be addressed as part of the development code update. Planning Board Member Ellis asked about the driver for these items such as the change to the MP2 zone. He suggested it would be helpful for the Council to provide direction regarding specific tasks they have in mind such as developing an ordinance, conducting a public hearing, etc. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Board Member Ellis’ comment about the driver for items. He encouraged the Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the Council. His priorities were the development code update and Highway 99 with revisions to the sign code considered as part of the development code update. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE PLANNING BOARD TO LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND HIGHWAY 99 AND TO INCLUDE THE SIGN CODE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND WHEN THOSE ARE COMPLETED THE PLANNING BOARD PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE MP2 ZONE. Councilmember Bloom questioned the rationale for delaying changes to the MP2 zone due to escrow, noting that concern was never been mentioned to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. The change to the MP2 zone is much less complex than Highway 99 and changes to Highway 99 will take much longer. She did not agree with Councilmember Mesaros’ priorities; her order of priority was revisions to the subdivision code via the development code update, MP2 zone, Highway 99, and sign code. She was unclear why the Council needed to vote on a priority when the Planning Board indicated they would consider them all. Councilmember Mesaros said his intent was not to delay the revisions to the MP2 zone. The other items have a higher priority as WSDOT does not plan to develop residential on the site. Councilmember Petso did not support the motion, relaying her understanding of the motion that the changes to the MP2 zone would not be considered until revisions to Highway 99 were completed. Council President Buckshnis relayed the WSDOT Facilities Manager indicated they only needed commercial and Unocal agreed. Her concern with making a change while the property was in escrow was potentially altering the value of the property. She did not view the changes to the MP2 zone as a priority, noting there were other associated issues such as the Shoreline Master Program, daylighting Willow Creek, buffers, etc. Mayor Earling recalled the Planning Board Chair indicated the Planning Board viewed all these items as important issues. Highway 99 is a 10 year issue and needs to get started. He accepted Chair Cloutier’s indication that the Planning Board would move forward on all the issues within the priority that a majority of the Council supported. Packet Page 192 of 212 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS SECONDED CALL FOR THE QUESTION. THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Chair Cloutier agreed Highway 99 and the development code update were 10 year questions. The Planning Board will work with staff to create a code rewrite outline/schedule to ensure specific code sections are addressed. He suggested the Council identify their priorities within the development code and Highway 99. Planning Board Val Stewart explained the Planning Board often does things concurrently. She asked the Council’s interest in sustainable development and incorporating green building elements into the code or developing a separate green building code such as Kirkland’s. Mayor Earling responded the Council’s support of green initiatives and participation on the Mayor’s Climate Change Committee indicates their support. Councilmember Petso preferred to require green buildings rather than incentivize them. She also encouraged the City to get away from LEED; she was not happy with the scorecard approach where points are awarded for things that may be meaningful in one context but not another. For example, points are awarded for solar collectors as well as for shade trees that could shade solar collectors. Another example, points for a bike rack in downtown Edmonds may make sense but make less sense for a building on the Hanford reservation. She summarized the LEED code was one-size-fits-all and she preferred the Planning Board target their efforts on green items that were meaningful. Councilmember Bloom agreed green techniques should be incorporated into the code rather than offered as an incentive. She recalled Ms. Morris’ suggestion to have a separate code regarding green building requirements. Board Member Stewart agreed a variety of green building programs could be researched. The key is requiring a third party verifier to certify. She agreed the scorecard approach was common but evolving programs provide market demand for performance. Councilmember Peterson agreed a green building baseline should be mandatory but if someone wanted to go beyond, there need to be incentives. He pointed out the highest level of green building cannot be mandated because then nothing will be developed. Consideration should be given to incentivizing green buildings to encourage redevelopment and remodeling because without development, many of the improvements to stormwater, etc. will not occur. Incentives can be something like faster permit turnaround or an easier process such as was developed for solar panels. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified Councilmember Peterson’s suggestion was a baseline green building but a developer could receive an incentive for something more. Councilmember Peterson agreed. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 12. CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PARAMETRIX, INC. AND REQUEST APPROVAL TO PURCHASE THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Packet Page 193 of 212 Chapter 16.60 2 CG – GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES Sections: 4 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. 16.60.005 Purposes. 6 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 8 16.60.020 Site development standards – General. 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 10 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 16.60.000 12 CG and CG2 zones. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two dis-14 tinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in ECDC 16.60.020(A). [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16 16.60.005 Purposes. 18 The CG and CG2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: 20 A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city. Mixed-use and transit-oriented developments are 22 encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall mixed development scheme. 24 B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to 26 support business and economic development. C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 28 corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development 30 should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. 32 D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. Where 34 designated in the comprehensive plan, the zoning should encourage mixed-use or taller high-rise development to occur. 36 E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect resi- dential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian 38 connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. 40 F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the 42 overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins Packet Page 194 of 212 residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) 2 and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned properties. 4 G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for 6 business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and 8 landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. 10 H. Within the corridor, high-rise nodes designated in the comprehensive plan should provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should 12 be: 1. Supported by adequate services and facilities; 14 2. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar 16 techniques; 3. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, 18 transit and pedestrian access; 4. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential 20 neighborhoods. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.010 22 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 24 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifi- cally prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this 26 section; 2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this sec-28 tion or limited by subsection (D) of this section; 3. Halfway houses; 30 4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, 32 and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 34 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted 36 primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or garden/nursery sales. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall 38 be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone contained in this chapter. 40 C. Prohibited Uses. 1. Residential uses located within the first or second story of any structure in areas 42 designated “Highway 99 Corridor” or “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map. There are two exceptions to this prohibition: 44 a. Residential uses may be allowed as part of large-scale mixed-use developments, as described in ECDC 16.60.020(B); and 46 Packet Page 195 of 212 b. Residential uses are allowed on the second floor of buildings that are not 2 located in areas designated as “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map and which are not located on lots that have frontage on Highway 99. 4 2. Mobile home parks. 3. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not 6 secondary to a permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this 8 type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 10 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.015 12 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the 14 development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the 16 following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or 18 educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar 20 facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health-related 22 purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. 24 A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are 26 met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the 28 following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: 30 a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 32 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city 34 limits: a. A public park; 36 b. A public library; c. A nursery school or preschool; 38 d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily 40 for religious worship; and f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, 42 public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; 44 g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and 46 Packet Page 196 of 212 i. A public hospital or hospital district. 2 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. 4 B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection 6 (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section, to the nearest physical point of the tenant 8 space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance From Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the sep-10 aration requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 12 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of 14 visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of 16 the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent 18 and surrounding land uses; 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented 20 business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse sec-22 ondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. 24 The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. 26 [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.020 28 Site development standards – General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as 30 follows: 32 Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side/Rear Setback Maximum Height Maximum Floor Area CG None None 10’; 4′ for car dealerships2 None1 60′3 None CG2 None None 10’; 4′ for car dealerships2 None1 75′3 None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by 34 any other provision of this code. 2 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 36 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. 38 Packet Page 197 of 212 B. Mixed-Use Developments. [There are at least two options here: (1) remove the 2 requirement entirely, or (2) scale back the area/dimensional minimums. Option 1 would be accomplished by deleting all of this section. Option 2 is shown here. Option 2 could be 4 modified to specify a different amount of commercial area – e.g. a number larger than ½ of the total first floor leasable area.] 6 [OPTION 2] 8 1. A mixture of commercial and residential uses, including residential uses located on the first or second floors of buildings, may be permitted for developments meeting the 10 following requirements: a. The proposed development’s combined site area is at least two acres. 12 ba. Floor area equivalent to ½ the combined total leasable area of the first (ground) floor for all buildings located on the site is devoted to commercial use. This 14 commercial floor area may be provided in any manner desirable on-site, except that for all buildings oriented to and facing frontage streets the street-facing portions of the 16 ground floor shall be occupied by commercial uses. Parking area(s) are excluded from this calculation. This requirement is not intended to require commercial uses facing 18 service drives, alleys, or other minor access easements that are not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 20 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 22 Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone or 75 feet in height in the 24 CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG 26 or CG2 zone must meet the design standards contained in this section. A. Screening and Buffering. 28 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights-of-way shall not 30 exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. 32 b. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building setback. 34 c. Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. 36 d. Landscape buffers shall be integrated into the design and layout of water detention and treatment elements, to minimize the physical and visual impacts of the 38 water quality elements. e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. 40 f. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet 42 in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-44 family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. 46 Packet Page 198 of 212 h. Type I landscaping is required for office and multifamily projects adjacent to 2 single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. 4 i. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six-foot-high concrete wall plus a 6 minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to 8 single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. 10 j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single- family zones. 12 k. When no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping three feet in width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. 14 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street 16 frontages. b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the 18 public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls, 20 ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque, iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque, or 22 iv. Type III landscaping. B. Access and Parking. 24 1. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building’s front facade and the primary street. 26 1. Parking shall be provided at the following ratios: [Option 1] 28 Site with street frontage adjoining only CG or CG2 zones Site with street frontage adjoining any other zone (other than CG or CG2) Non-Residential Uses 1 space per 600 sq. ft. of leasable building space 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of leasable building space Residential Uses 1 space per dwelling unit Parking as required for RM zones [Option 2] As an alternative to using the parking table provided above, a project-30 specific study may be conducted to determine the appropriate required parking for the development. The study shall be completed and paid for by the proponent, and may be 32 approved by the City if the study demonstrates that appropriate examples or parking studies for similar developments show that anticipated parking demand can be 34 accommodated on-site. 36 2. Location of parking. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building’s front facade and the primary street. Parking lots 38 may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. Packet Page 199 of 212 3. Paths within Parking Lots. 2 a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in 4 textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers. b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within 6 parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on-site buildings as well as pedestrian walkways that border the development. 8 c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on each side or have curb stops at each stall in the parking lot on one side and four feet of 10 planting on the second side. d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a mini-12 mum of every 100 feet. 4. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground FloorGrade. 14 a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below grade or above the ground floor or under of the building, the following code requirements may be 16 modified for the parking that is provided below grade or under-building: i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. 18 ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. iii. A mixture of full- and reduced-width parking stalls may be provided 20 without meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could be provided at full-width dimensions. 22 5. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: 24 a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. 26 b. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off-site. c. Only one direct entrance or exit from the drive-through shall be allowed as a 28 separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the drive-through shall be internal to the site. 30 6. Pedestrian and Transit Access. a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to 32 adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to 34 existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking 36 in the parking or access areas. c. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, 38 pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are required. 40 C. Site Design and Layout. 1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, 42 then their location on the site design should not be uniform in its layout. If a project has a uniform site layout for parking and open spaces, then the buildings shall vary in form, 44 materials, and/or identity. The following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least five of the elements were used to vary the design of 46 the site: Packet Page 200 of 212 a. Building massing and unit layout, 2 b. Placement of structures and setbacks, c. Lo cation of pedestrian and vehicular facilities, 4 d. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, 6 f. Types of building materials and/or elements, g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 8 2. Individuality for Particular Structures. If a project contains several new or old buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create 10 identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: a. Individual entry design for each building. 12 b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, open spaces, and the street. 14 c. Create variety through facade materials and organization. d. Create variety through roof forms. 16 e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and appearance. 18 3. Lighting. a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This 20 may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full “cut off” fixtures. b. Parking lots shall have lighting poles with a maximum of 25 feet in height. 22 c. Pedestrian ways shall have low height lighting focused on pathway area. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. 24 d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the build- ing/canopy. 26 D. Building Design and Massing. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct “base” and “top.” A “base” and “top” 28 can be emphasized in different ways, such as masonry pattern, more architectural detail, step-backs and overhangs, lighting, recesses, visible “plinth” above which the wall rises, 30 storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 32 2. In buildings with footprints of over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be given to scale, massing, and facade design so as to reduce the effect of large single 34 building masses. Ways to accomplish this can include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, setbacks, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. This 36 can also be accomplished by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. Note that facade offsets or step-backs should not be applied to the 38 ground floor of street-front facades in pedestrian-oriented zones or districts. 3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: 40 a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space which may substitute for a massing requirement if the space is at least 1,000 square feet in area. In commercial 42 zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables, planters and other elements. 44 b. Retaining or reusing an historic structure listed on the National Register or the Edmonds register of historic places. Any addition or new building on the site must be 46 designed to be compatible with the historic structure. Packet Page 201 of 212 4. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting 2 streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating 4 at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). 6 b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. c. Belt courses of a different texture and color. 8 d. Projecting cornice. e. Projecting metal canopy. 10 f. Decorative tilework. g. Trellis containing planting. 12 h. Medallions. i. Artwork or wall graphics. 14 j. Vertical differentiation. k. Lighting fixtures. 16 l. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. [Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 18 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 20 A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 22 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 24 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 26 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 28 6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 30 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of 32 Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Interim Use Status – Public Markets. 34 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a 36 temporary use. As a temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is uti-38 lized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards 40 established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 42 Packet Page 202 of 212 Draft – June 9, 2014  L:\SHARE\TEMP\Kevin Garrett\Westgate\Parking Table ‐ Centers.docx  Parking Requirements in Mixed‐Use Areas  in Puget Sound Region    City and   District    Multi‐Famly*  Primary   Non‐Residential Uses*    Comment    Regional Growth Centers    Burien –  Downtown  Per parking study Retail:  2.7/1000 sf gfa  Office:  2.7/1000 sf gfa  Reductions allowed  with pkg study;  In‐lieu fee option  Everett – CBD  1/unit None   Everett –  Residential Core  <1BR:  1/unit  2+BR:  1.5/unit  Office:  1/400 sf gfa (2.5/1,000 sf) Offices allowed only  in mixed use  buildings  Kent – Downtown  Commercial – Core  1.0/unit None Properties paid into  LID  Kent – Downtown  Commercial  Enterprise (DCE)  1.0/unit    1.5/unit  50% of citywide requirement    75% of citywide requirement  Two areas of DCE  Credit for LID  Lynnwood – City  Center  0.5/unit Retail, Service, Office:  3/1,000 sf gfa  Non‐Customer Office:  2/1,000 sf gfa    Redmond –  Downtown, Town  Center, Bear Creek,  Valley View, Trestle  1/unit, plus guest  (1/4 units)  Curbside counted  toward req’d  Sales and Services (incl. offices):   3.5/1,000 sf gfa  Can reduce minimum  with parking study  Redmond –  Downtown, Old  Town, Anderson  Park, Sammamish  Trail, Town Sq.,  River Bend, River  Trail, Carter, East  Hill  1/unit, plus guest  (1/4 units)  Curbside counted  toward req’d  Sales and Services (incl. offices):   2/1,000 sf gfa  In‐lieu bonus  program in Old Town  Can reduce minimum  with parking study  Renton – Center  Downtown   1/unit Retail, Office, Service:  None Max. ratios also  specified  Packet Page 203 of 212 Draft – June 9, 2014    City and   District    Multi‐Famly*  Primary   Non‐Residential Uses*    Comment  Renton – Urban  Center North and  Village Center  Citywide  In Urban Center  North, pkg must  be in a structure  Citywide Reduction allowed  through Trans. Mgmt.  Plan    Other Centers      Bothell –  Downtown   0.75/BR Retail:  1/400 sf (2.5/1,000 sf)**  Retail fronting Main St.:  none  Office:  1/500 sf (2/1,000 sf)  In‐lieu payment  option in Core District Issaquah – Central  Issaquah  <600 sf:   0.75/unit  >600 sf:  1/unit  2/1,000 sf nsf Waived for small  retail space in mixed  use building  Kent – Midway  Transit Community  0.75/unit  0.75/unit  1/400 sf gfa (2.5/1,000)  1/500 sf gfa (2.0/1,000  Two subdistricts  Kirkland – Central  Business District  1 space per BR or  studio  Average 1.3/unit  for development  1/350 sf gfa (2.8/1,000 sf) In‐lieu fee option.   Resl:  Guest parking  may be required  Resl:  substantial  reduction for bldgs.  with managed  parking.  Kirkland –Planned  Residential Areas  Around CBD  1.7/unit Office:  1/300 sf gfa (3.3/1,000 sf)  Medical:  1/200 sf gfa (5/1,000 sf)  Some areas:  as  determined by  Planning Official  (case‐by‐case).  Lynnwood –  Hwy 99 mixed use  nodes  1/unit In mixed use with res’l:  3/1,000 sf gla  Otherwise:  citywide code.    Mill Creek – Town  Center  1BR:  1.125/unit  2+BR:  1.875/unit (plus 33% for  guest parking)   Retail:  1/250 sf gla (4/1,000 sf)  Pers. Service:  1/300 sf gla (3.3/1,000  sf)  Medical:  1/200 sf gla (5/1,000 sf)  Offices w/on‐site:  1/400 sf gla  (2.5/1,000 sf)  Offices not on‐site:  1/800 sf gla  (1.25/1,000 sf)  Citywide  Some reductions for  mixed use  developments  Packet Page 204 of 212 Draft – June 9, 2014    City and   District    Multi‐Famly*  Primary   Non‐Residential Uses*    Comment  Mountlake Terrace  – Downtown  Community  Business Dist.  <2BR:  1.25/unit  3BR:  1.5/unit  >3BR: 1:2 addl BR Commercial Uses:  2/1,000 sf gla First 5,000 sf of retail  or eating/drinking  exempt with 4 on‐ street spaces.  Shoreline – North  City and Town  Center  Citywide Citywide 25% reduction in  specified situations    Notes  *  Minimum number of parking spaces required  **  Where applicable, standards are converted to a “/1,000 sf” ratio for ease of comparison.      Caveats:    A) Determination of area (square footage) varies from city to city;   B) Most cities allow parking reductions for shared parking situations;   C) Codes provide other standards for other uses.  D) Some cities also set a maximum ratio (limiting parking provided).    Abbrevations  BR – bedroom   Citywide – Regular parking standards apply; no explicit reduction for mixed‐use districts.  gfa – Gross Floor Area  gla – Gross Leasable Area  nsf – net square footage (defined in Code)  nua – Net Usable Area (defined in Code)  sf – square feet       Packet Page 205 of 212    AM-7084     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/26/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 12, 2014. Recommendation For information. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Copies of the meeting minutes are attached. Attachments 08-12-14 Finance Committee minutes 08-12-14 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee minutes 08-12-14 Public Safety & Personnel Committee minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/20/2014 11:44 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2014  Packet Page 206 of 212 Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING August 12, 2014 Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Lora Petso Sarah Mager, Accounting Supervisor Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Brian Tuley, IT Supervisor Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Scott Passey, City Clerk Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Jeannie Dines, Recorder The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A. 2014 June Quarterly Budgetary Financial Report Ms. Mager presented the report, advising there was nothing new or different from the May report. The June report is the second quarter report, halfway through the year. She reported general fund revenue is above budget and expenses are below budget, none of the departments are over budget. Mr. James will add the narrative to the report that is presented to the Council. She responded to committee members’ questions. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda B. Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy Ms. Mager explained the policy was drafted by Finance Director Scott James based on Poulsbo’s policy. He is seeking comments/changes before the policy proceeds. Committee members requested the following changes: • Specifically address the annual volunteer appreciation event • Indicate Council President signs Councilmember expenses • Eliminate limit on number of retreats (page 3) Action: Discussion only D. PFD Quarterly Report Executive Joe McIalwain reviewed the EPFD Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, highlighting the following: • On budget through June 30, revenues at 53% and expenses at 52% • Ticket sales are higher than budgeted at 62% • Rental revenue and concessions are on budget • Contributions are at 42% which is typical at this time of year. Additional revenue expected from Red Carpet Gala (auction) in September and Rick Steves contribution. Expect to meet goal for contributions. • Artist expenses are higher which translates into higher ticket sales • Salaries and employee benefits are on budget. Reconfiguring job description for facilities manager position. Packet Page 207 of 212 Mr. McIalwain relayed he expects to submit a request to the City for a loan of $160,000 to meet the bond obligation at year end. This process begins via the PFD submitting a Notice of Deficiency to the Finance Director in October. Mr. McIalwain reported the $10,000 projected in Snohomish County Tier 2 revenue in 2014 is expected to increase to $40,000-$50,000 in 2015. Although a very volatile revenue stream, it is part of the answer to the shortfall. The original projection for Tier 2 revenue prior to 2008 was $200,000/year. They are still trying to identify new revenue streams to eliminate the need for loan from City and ultimately begin to repay the loans. He and the Director of Advancement are working on a building sponsorship program to generate an annual revenue stream of $150,000-$200,000 for 10 years to help address the bond debt. The name of the ECA would be X Theater at Edmonds Center for the Arts. Councilmember Petso asked whether artist presentation expenses are covered by ticket sales which Mr. McIalwain offered to research. Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. McIalwain add to the agenda memo a narrative regarding the Notice of Deficiency process in October and the estimated amount. PFD Board President Bob Rinehart and ECA Past President Steven Shelton were also present. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. Next quarterly report in October/November 2014 C. IT Update Mr. Tuley provided an update on the computer system upgrade. All the hardware has been received and the engineer is scheduled to begin work August 28. The exchange server is being built from the ground up. Users should not notice any difference. Mr. Tuley provided an update on telephony, advising all equipment has been ordered; awaiting delivery from MyTel. Once it arrives, the vendor will be informed, programing will be completed off site and equipment will be installed after hours in Public Safety, Public Works and City Hall. There will be minimal downtime and it will be virtually unnoticeable to users other than reprogramming voicemail greetings. He forwarded the committee members a draft replacement policy and a draft replacement schedule. In response to committee members’ questions, Mr. Tuley advised a portable A/C unit was rented for the server room for the short term. The long term solution is to update it with a bigger unit. The new computer equipment will not produce as much heat. The project will be on or under budget at the end. With regard to the replacement policy, he assured equipment that is still working would not be replaced. Action: Discussion only. E. Business License Fees Discussion Mr. Passey explained there are 1,800 licensed businesses in the City; approximately 70 businesses annually pay their fee late. Under the current process, the City Clerk sends a renewal, a courtesy notice and a second letter; when that is unsuccessful, it is referred to code enforcement who sends three more letters. Several options have been discussed; he recommended raising the late fee from $25 to $100 as an incentive to comply. The cost of a business license renewal is $50. This would free up staff time and allow staff to provide a higher level of service to community. He has some discretion in waiving late fee. A code amendment is required to change the fee schedule. Mr. Thies commented it is typically the same businesses every year. Packet Page 208 of 212 Committee members’ suggestions included prominently identifying in the annual renewal letter and the reminder letter that the late fee has increased and including the reminder letter in the Council packet. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. F. Public Comment Port Commissioner David Preston commented some organizations have a tiered late fee. He asked whether the City accepts credit cards. Ms. Mager answered yes, over the phone but not online. There is no automatic renewal program. Councilmember Petso recalled a discussion about establishing a credit card fee based on a percentage of the charge. Ms. Mager advised the City can charge a fee but it cannot be a percentage of the sale. Some departments do not accept credit card payments over $5,000. Municipal Court Doug Fair explained his salary is 95% of a District Court Judge’s salary which is due to increase September 1 in accordance with the annual increase established by the State Salary Commission. To continue to receive Court Improvement Funds, the increase needs to be approved by the Council. As it was not on the Finance Committee’s agenda, Councilmember Petso will inform the Council that Judge Fair will be contacting Council President Buckshnis to schedule it on a Consent Agenda before September 1. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Packet Page 209 of 212 Minutes PARKS, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING August 12, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Joan Bloom Phil Williams, Public Works Director Councilmember Tom Mesaros Rob English, City Engineer The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A. Public Works Quarterly Project Report Mr. English presented the Quarterly Project Report, highlighting several projects. In response to committee members’ questions, Mr. English and Mr. Williams provided details regarding several projects including the mid-block crossing on SR-104 near Pine Street funded via the residential neighborhood traffic calming project. Action: Schedule for full Council. B. Report and Project Close Out for the WWTP Switchgear Upgrade Project Mr. Williams explained the Council awarded a contract to Ewing Electric last year to replace the switchgear at the treatment plant. This was a high priority replacement project due to corrosion and the danger of failure. The budget estimate was $1.4 million, the contract with Ewing Electric was $1.269 million and the total project cost was $1.274 million. Action: Schedule for full Council. C. Phase 4 – Energy Improvement Project Mr. Williams advised there have been three previous Energy Service Company (ESCO) projects; this project is at the wastewater treatment plant. ESCO calculates and guarantees the savings. The project includes two separate elements: • Replacement of two air compressors with high efficiency units with capacity matched to loan and will analyze and repair the system for leaks • Aeration basin #2 upgrade to plug flow configuration, installation of high efficiency ultrafine bubble diffusers and air distribution system which is more energy efficient, provides better treatment. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. D. Proof-of-Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project Mr. Williams explained the intent would be to paint the recommended geometry and use it for a year to gain experience and allow it to be evaluated. He distributed and reviewed 11x14 drawings of the Temporary Trail and New Striping Plan and responded to committee members’ questions. Committee member suggestions included: • Provide an aerial photograph of the current condition • Overlay the temporary trail and striping plan on an aerial photograph and identify the streets • Provide Councilmembers a large drawing Action: Schedule for full Council on August 19. Packet Page 210 of 212 E. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvement Project to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the Amount of $337,759.43 Mr. English relayed the City received nine bids for this project. The engineer’s estimate was $454,000, and the low bid from D&G Backhoe was $338,000. The total construction budget is $437,000 which includes the cost to manage the project, testing lab and 10% contingency. The cost will be paid by the Stormwater Utility Fund. He identified the site locations and recommended the project be awarded to D&G Backhoe. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. F. Authorization for Mayor to Approve Acceptance and Recording of a Quit Claim Deed for 740 15th St SW Mr. English advised the consultant surveyed 15th St. SW and identified an area near 8th Street where a small amount of right-of-way (24 square feet) needs to be secured for construction of the project. The property owners are excited about the sidewalk project and are willing to convey a small corner of their property for construction of the sidewalk. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. G. Report on Final Construction Costs for the 220 7th Ave Curb Ramp and Curb/Gutter Project and Acceptance of Project Mr. English explained this is closeout of a small project to replace two curb ramps and the existing curb and gutter north of Edmonds Street. The property owner constructed the sidewalk at his cost. The small works roster was utilized; the contract amount was $12,450 and the actual cost was $11,270. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. H. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 15th St SW Walkway Project Mr. English explained this project was scheduled on tonight’s agenda as it will be advertised for construction bids in August, possibly providing an opportunity to award the project at the September 2 Council meeting. If that schedule cannot be met, the bid results and budget will be on the September committee agenda. Action: Information only. I. Update on Edmonds Arts Commission Temporary Art Projects on 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor This item will be rescheduled to September as Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin was unavailable to present tonight. Action: Reschedule on September committee agenda. J. Public Comment – None The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Packet Page 211 of 212 Minutes PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING August 12, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Douglas Fair, Municipal Court Judge Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation/HR Reporting Dir. Elected Officials Absent Scott Passey, City Clerk Councilmember Strom Peterson Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A. Liquor/Recreational Marijuana License Review Process Mr. Passey explained the code requires all liquor/recreational marijuana licenses be approved by the Council; in the past a list of liquor license renewals have been scheduled on the Consent Agenda. The City also receives 1-2 individual liquor license applications per week which have a 21 day turnaround and it would be difficult to accomplish staff review and Council approval in 21 days. The State ultimately issues the license. It is uncommon for City Councils to be involved and is typically handled as an administrative matter. Staff does not recall Council ever rejecting a license. He requested the committee direct the City Attorney to draft a code amendment to take the Council out of the review process. Action: Short presentation to full Council on August 19. B. Lead Court Clerk Job Description Ms. Hite advised Human Resources reviewed the description and has worked with SEIU and recommend Council approval. While Ms. Ferebee was on leave recently, a Lead Court Clerk undertook her responsibilities as well as led the Court Clerks. Since Ms. Ferebee’s return, that position has proved to be invaluable to the organization and is necessary for operation of the court. It is not a new position; it is a reclassification of an existing position. An employee is currently working out of class, paid 5% to act in a lead capacity. Ms. Ferebee described the need for the position and the ability it would provide her to work on court improvements such as a paperless court. Ms. Ferebee and Judge Fair responded to questions regarding duties this individual will continue to perform and additional duties that require reclassification and the 5% salary increase ($2500/year). Action: Short presentation to full Council. C. Public Comment – None The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m. Packet Page 212 of 212