Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014.10.07 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 2.(10 Minutes) AM-7172 Meet with Sister City candidate Karyn Heinekin for confirmation to the ESCC. BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER/ FLAG SALUTE 3.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7180 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2014. B.AM-7175 Approval of claim checks #210630 through #210754 dated September 25, 2014 for $616,827.50 and claim checks #210755 through #210890 dated October 2, 2014 for $873,848.64. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61207 through #61231 for $484,386.53, benefit checks #61232 through #61240 and wire payments of $411,475.61 for the period September 16, 2014 through September 30, 2014. C.AM-7167 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Lara L. Dittoe (amount undetermined). Packet Page 1 of 787 D.AM-7169 2014 August Monthly Budgetary Financial Report E.AM-7177 Ordinance amending Chapter 4.72 of the Edmonds City Code related to Business License Fees and Penalties F.AM-7178 Ordinance amending ECC Chapters 4.20 and 4.26 related to the Processing of Notices of Pending State-issued Liquor and Marijuana Licenses G.AM-7173 Confirmation of Karyn Heinekin to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. H.AM-7174 Removal of residence located at 533 - 3rd Avenue South from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places 6.(5 Minutes) AM-7181 Proclamation in honor of Ron Clyborne 7.(5 Minutes) AM-7128 Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week ~ October 19 - 25, 2014. 8.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 9.(15 Minutes)Edmonds Library Update 10.(20 Minutes) AM-7176 Public comment and potential action on the following State Initiative: Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers. This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No 11.(60 Minutes) AM-7171 Public Hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve: 1) An Amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone and related design standards; and 2) An Amendment to the Zoning Map changing the BN, BC and BC-EW zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone designation. The Westgate Commercial Area consists of the BN, BC and BC-EW Zones near the intersection of SR-104 (Edmonds Way) and 100th Ave W. 12.(15 Minutes) AM-7183 Mayor Earling presents to the Edmonds City Council and citizens his 2015 recommended City Budget. 13.(15 Minutes) AM-7179 Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2014 Budget. 14.(30 Minutes)Discussion and potential action on Development Code Amendment for CG Zones in Packet Page 2 of 787 14.(30 Minutes) AM-7170 Discussion and potential action on Development Code Amendment for CG Zones in Highway 99 Area. 15.(15 Minutes) AM-7168 Contract Discussion (and/or Renewal) with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC (Lighthouse) 16.(15 Minutes)Report on Outside Board and Committee Meetings 17.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 18.(15 Minutes)Council Comments ADJOURN 19.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 19.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. Packet Page 3 of 787 AM-7172 2. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Meet with Sister City candidate Karyn Heinekin for confirmation to the ESCC. Recommendation The Sister City Commissioners and Mayor Earling are recommending appointment of Karyn Heinekin to the Sister City Commission. Previous Council Action Narrative Karyn Heinekin was interviewed by members of the Sister City Commission and recommended to Mayor Earling for appointment to the Commission. Mayor Earling interviewed Ms. Heinekin and is pleased to appoint her to the Sister City Commission. Ms. Heinekin has supported the Commission's work through her position as an Elementary School teacher with the Edmonds School District. Ms. Heinekin also served as one of the chaperones for this year's Sister City Commission student delegation that travelled to Hekinan in July. Mayor Earling and the Commissioners believe Ms. Heinekin will be an excellent addition to the Commission. She will fill position #10 which was vacated in December 2013. Attachments Karyn_Heinekin_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 07:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 08:10 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 08:18 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/01/2014 04:10 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 4 of 787 Packet Page 5 of 787 Packet Page 6 of 787 AM-7180 5. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 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 September 23, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 08-23-14 Draft Council Meeting minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/02/2014 11:05 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 7 of 787 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 23, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative 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. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official 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 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(a) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite and Public Works Director Phil Williams, Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:57 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 8 of 787 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210337 THROUGH #210346 DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 FOR $26,625.76, CLAIM CHECK #210347 DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 AND CLAIM CHECKS #210348 THROUGH #210517 DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 TOTAL $2,423,039.38. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61167 THROUGH #61178 FOR $467,673.17 AND #61188 FOR $750.01, BENEFIT CHECKS #61179 THROUGH #61187 FOR $91,649.44 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $312,987.24 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 16, 2014 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2014 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210519 THROUGH #210629 DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 FOR $253,666.59. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS (REPLACEMENT CHECK #61065 THROUGH #61066) #61069 THROUGH #61085 FOR $476,165.93, BENEFIT CHECKS#61068, #61086 THROUGH #61094 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $423,990.52 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 5. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling commented on efforts to develop a tree program. He read a proclamation declaring October 4, 2014 Arbor Day in Edmonds and presented the proclamation to Tree Board Chair Susan Paine. Chair Paine identified several members of the Tree Board in the audience. The Arbor Day Foundation encourages cities and towns to become a Tree City USA. Edmonds has been a Tree City USA since 2012 and is seeking a growth award this year. Designation as a Tree City USA requires the proclamation. She provided a brief update on the Tree Board’s activities: • A consultant, Elizabeth Walker, is developing a Community Tree Plan as well as working on the tree code • The Heritage Tree Program is nearly complete and will be presented to the Council late this year or early next year She invited the public to join the Tree Board at the Summer Market on Saturday, October 4. They will have the Tree City USA flag on display as well as plants and information regarding trees. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Denise Wexler, Edmonds, said she supports development at Westgate and feels it could be a win-win. She urged the Council to reflect on the uniqueness of Edmonds; people come to Edmonds due to its small town feel. She referred to Carol Sanford’s Story of Place, suggesting all sides collaborate on developing Edmonds’ story in a way that ensures a livable community and prosperity for all. This intersection is a gateway to the City and she suggested creating a feeling of welcome, an area similar to outdoor business areas in California, Colorado, Mill Creek or University Village. She urged the Council not to rush and end up with something like Kirkland or Ballard and not to replicate the mistakes made at the Compass Apartments. She supported the proposal for mixed use housing, finding Westgate an appropriate location for a limited number of apartments. She expressed concerns with traffic, tenants’ ingress and egress onto SR-104 during peak hours, access to apartments, and parking. She inquired about the Chambers of Commerce’s opinion about new businesses at Westgate and the impact it would have on struggling Packet Page 9 of 787 businesses downtown. She summarized change is inevitable and ultimately good if done right. She urged the Council to make thoughtful, creative and deliberative decisions and modifications to the existing plan. Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Bloom’s September 14, 2014 post in My Edmonds News, “I do not wear the crown, Mayor Earling wears the crown and he has the entire staff available to support his position. None of directors working on this plan, including the former Acting Development Services Director live in Edmonds. They will not feel the effect of the Westgate development personally. This isn’t their city, it’s just their jobs.” If Councilmember Bloom truly believes this isn’t their city, it’s just their jobs, he said it is a sad reflection on what an elected official will say get their point across. That statement demeans City employees who have degrees, professional careers and passion, employees who spend over eight hours of each work day in addition to many evenings and weekends serving the Edmonds community, employees who are invested in the City and have established relationships with citizens, community groups, property owners, Councilmembers and the Mayor over many years, and reduces the reason they work for City down to a paycheck. Councilmember Bloom’s statement told City staff they lack integrity; they couldn’t possibly be presenting information or proposals based on their professional assessment or for the good of the community because it’s just their jobs. While employed by Edmonds, he considered it a privilege and assured City employees care as deeply as he does about the Edmonds community and the outcomes, projects and proposals they work on He never sensed that any Edmonds employee living in another community was working just for a paycheck or that they cared any less because they didn’t live in Edmonds. He suggested Councilmember Bloom’s thinking could be applied to the appointment of non-residents to boards or commissions and questioned whether she objected to Councilmember Petso’s appointment of a Seattle resident to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) a few months ago. He urged the Westgate plan not be referred to as the Mayor’s or a staff-driven plan; the plan was initiated by the EDC and the Planning Board and staff’s role has been to facilitate the process. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed he has received no response to numerous requests to Council President Buckshnis, Mayor Earling and City Engineer Rob English to meet with him. He has sent Mayor Earling over 300 emails since March 2012 and he has not acknowledged or responded to any of them; common courtesy would require a response. He relayed a situation in front of the Hearing Examiner, where the Hearing Examiner was provided the law that protected a building, proof and evidence that the building had existed since the 1960s, yet the City Attorney told the Hearing Examiner that grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses not illegally uses. He disagreed with that statement, referring to the ordinance the Council passed this year grandfathering AT&T’s illegally initiated use. Ordinance 3696 passed in August 2008 directly applies to his building and was discussed in a staff meeting, yet staff pursued code enforcement for his building. He asked Council President Buckshnis and Mayor Earling to contact him. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, added to Mr. Clifton’s comments regarding Councilmember Bloom’s post, pointing out Mr. Clifton has been a resident of Edmonds for several years. 7. UPDATE ON EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION TEMPORARY ART PROJECTS ON 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin commented the narrow street that connects the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) to the downtown retail area has long been considered a unique and special part of the downtown community. The intersection of 4th & Main was a commercial center in Edmonds’ early history and is still a commercial center. Homes along 4th Avenue are typical of the early town, anchored at the north end by the original high school campus, a portion of which remains as the ECA. For the past ten years the community has identified this corridor as a special place with the vision of making it a great place. Great places make everyone feel welcome, provide an opportunity to learn through observation and interaction and invite closer attention. Packet Page 10 of 787 She described 2009 4th Avenue Plan Elements • Curbless roadway and walkway • Bollards define pedestrian and auto space • Trees and plantings throughout • Lighting elements throughout • Wayfinding and/or art throughout • Define intersections • Small park at Sprague • Visual connection from ECA to south of Main Ms. Chapin described 2014 Temporary Art Projects: • Interim or temporary art projects identified as important strategy for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor in 2014 approved Community Cultural Plan • EAFF and Arts Commission contracted with artist Benson Shaw to research and provide information on potential temporary art treatments along the corridor • Edmonds Arts Commission convened stakeholders group and established advisory committee representing businesses, property owners, and residents • Edmonds Arts Commission approved committee suggestions at August 2014 meeting. She highlighted 2009 Elements in the 2014 Temporary Art Projects: • Lighting Elements throughout • Wayfinding and/or art throughout • Define intersection • Small part • Visual connection from ECA to south of Main • Parklet She displayed photographs of graphic sidewalks elements, decorative crosswalks, and lights/finials to mark the path. She displayed a map of the 4th Avenue Corridor identifying potential locations for these elements. She reviewed next steps • Artist designs developed • Advisory group and Arts Commission review with artist team in public meeting • Develop schedule for phased implementation • Implement selected elements beginning fall 2014 • Temporary art elements complete by July 2015 • Parklet concept design, funding and implementation process begin winter 2015 for completion in the summer She identified members of the stakeholders group in the audience including Steve Shelton, Darlene McLellan and Clayton Moss. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a lot of creativity went into providing a new and improved 4th Avenue. She recalled reducing traffic on the road was part of the plan. Ms. Chapin recalled the discussion about parking was in regard to the 2009 plan that included some traffic revision. This proposal is only is temporary elements; two parking spaces would be lost at the corner of Sprague for the parklet. Those parking spaces are heavily used during the summer market but not much during other times. The width of the road may allow angle parking; that would be part of the parklet planning process. The 2009 plan proposed the block between Bell and Main be one way because the intersection at 4th & Main is a dangerous intersection. The temporary project does not change anything in the roadway other than adding Packet Page 11 of 787 decorative elements. Cities have found the addition of crosswalks and decorative elements slows traffic. That is a potential result of the project but is not the main goal. Council President Buckshnis commended the Arts Commission for this project as well as the historic art markers. Ms. Chapin recognized the artist Judith Caldwell who designed the historic markers. 8. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Development Services is building, engineering and planning. This department requires a great deal of teamwork and interaction with the public. The City’s regulations do not always make everyone happy but staff does a good job of trying to do the right thing within the regulations and standards. Staff is often complimented about the way they go above and beyond; she expressed her appreciation to staff. She provided examples of what happens in the office and in the field: • Inspections – approximately 6,000 field inspections were performed by building inspectors, engineering inspector and planning staff • Staff meetings – teamwork • Development Review Committee Meetings – staff providing pre-application assistance for development projects being planned Building Official Leif Bjorback reviewed a graph of building permits and revenue January – August 2001-2014, highlighting trends over last decade, the high times in mid-2000s, the economic slump in 2009-2010, and upward trends in recent years. He commented revenue in 2014 from building permits and reviews is up and is anticipated to make a dramatic jump when a couple major commercial permits are released. He noted building permit activity has not fluctuated as much as revenue; during down times there is still activity but not as much money is spent on construction. He displayed 2014 permits issued through August: Type of Permit # Issued New Single family 33 Duplex 0 Apartment/Condo 0 Commercial 2 Mixed use (office/condo 1 Additions/Alterations Single family 60 Apartment/Condo 9 Commercial 43 Other Mechanical/Plumbing 129/133 Demolition 15 Miscellaneous 270 Total 804 He displayed Solar Panel Permits Year Number of Permits Number of Permits Applied for Online Number of Permits Applied for at Counter 2012 3 0 3 2013 6 51 Packet Page 12 of 787 2014 to date 27 23 4 Mr. Bjorback explained the Engineering Division is heavily involved in the building permit process as well as engineering permits for right-of-way, street use, encroachment and side sewer activity. He provided engineering permits for the period September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014: • Engineering permits issued: 591 • Total permit fees: $83,285.44 • Inspections performed: 1,094 • Total inspection fees: $124,815.82 • Estimated reviews: 1,200 He displayed a map identifying key development projects and provided photographs of current projects, advising that the Development Services Department currently has 544 active issued building permits; of those, 52 are active single family residence permits. Mr. Bjorback and Ms. Hope displayed photographs and described: • Swedish Hospital 3-story parking garage, o 108,990 square feet o $8.4 million in valuation o Completed June 2014 • Swedish Hospital Expansion o 94,117 square foot expansion Emergency department on first level Tenant space on second level o $28 million in valuation • New Post Office Mixed use Building o 94,256 square feet o 43 residential units, post office and retail space o $7.2 million in valuation o 2 phases Post office remains intact during phase 1 In phase 2, post office moves into tenant space, old post office demolished and replaced by new building • Community Health Center o 24,750 square feet o Medical and dental center o $2.6 million in valuation o Completed July 2014 • Salish Crossing o Complete remodel providing five new tenant spaces and museum, parking lot and pedestrian improvements o 21,000 square feet • Jacobsen’s Marine o New 10,120 square foot marine services building o $810,000 in valuation • Prestige Care o New 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue W o $6.9 million in valuation o Demolish down old building, new building 50% larger o New approach to skilled nursing - less institutional more livable. • 5th Avenue Animal Hospital o 10,561 square foot veterinary clinic Packet Page 13 of 787 o $891,000 valuation Mr. Bjorback explained plan review traditionally required a lot of paper. The department is transitioning to new technology, outfitting all plan reviewers with new electronic plan review software which requires larger monitors and dual monitors. A number of jurisdictions are doing electronic plan review, there is a high demand for it in the industry, it requires less travel for the applicants, and correspondence between the City and applicant is easier and more clear. Overall it increases efficiency and reduces the carbon footprint. Councilmember Johnson commented she found this a very comprehensive and interesting presentation and suggested it be provided to the Economic Development Commission. She asked how often Ms. Hope planned to provide this update. Ms. Hope answered she would like to provide an update twice a year. Council President Buckshnis inquired about progress on the Green Resources Center. Ms. Hope explained a design for the space is being developed. Some offices had to be moved and there are plans to have professional help with translating the design ideas and building the Green Resources Center this fall. Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Johnson’s comments, finding this a good report with good information. He agreed providing the update twice a year would be beneficial. Councilmember Peterson asked whether Solarize South County was aware of the City’s online permitting process. Mr. Bjorback advised he and Mr. Chave have been involved in Solarize South County including assisting with the selection of a contractor and Mr. Chave is continuing as part of the outreach effort for the campaign. They are aware of the City’s online permitting process. 9. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROCESS City Engineer Rob English advised the packet contains staff responses to several questions raised by Councilmembers in recent weeks. He explained both the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) documents are team effort; Public Works takes the lead in compiling the information, Parks & Recreation, Development Services and Finance contribute to the documents and can address questions during the review and approval process. The draft CFP/CIP will be presented to the Planning Board tomorrow at a public hearing. A Council study session is scheduled on October 14 which will include any revisions recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. English provided a comparison of the CIP and CFP: CIP CFP Mandate None GMA Reason Budget GMA Time Frame 6 years 6 year 20 year Must include Capital Yes Yes Must include Maintenance? Yes No Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, both contain 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The 2015-2020 CFP contains three project sections: Packet Page 14 of 787 • General o Parks, building and regional projects • Transportation o Safety capacity and pedestrian/bicycle • Stormwater Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund: Fund Description Department 112 Transportation Public Works 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/Public Works 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/Public Works 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 132 Parks- Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 421 Water Projects Public Works 422 Storm Projects Public Works 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP timeline • July o City staff begins development of capital budgets • August o Submit proposed capital budget to Finance o Prepare draft CFP and CIP • September o Present draft CFP and CIP to Planning Board at public hearing • October o Present revised CFP and CIP to City Council • November/December o Council public hearing and approval o Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the CFP Councilmember Petso asked how the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) fits into this. She recalled the SR-104 crosswalk was include in the TIP but was not in the CFP or the CIP. Mr. English answered the TIP is on a slightly different timeline; the approval deadline is July 1. Staff typically presents the TIP to the Council in early June. Any changes to the TIP are incorporated into the CFP and CIP during the annual update process to make them consistent. Councilmember Bloom commented the SR-104 crosswalk was in the 2013 TIP but was not in 2014 CFP and CIP, yet it still was funded. She asked how a project that was not in the CFP or CIP could be funded. Mr. English explained that was an opportunity to leverage a State project. The State received a grant to build the crosswalk. The project was managed by Washington State Department of Transportation and had citizen support. At the time the project was being awarded, the State asked the City for funds to help with the award of project. A decision made and funds were allocated to the project. Councilmember Bloom said her concern was the fact that it was never on the CFP or CIP. A citizen contacted WSDOT and learned it was an Edmonds generated project, yet the TIP stated it was completely State funded. She was concerned that this project suddenly appeared and asked how the City could seek Packet Page 15 of 787 funds from the State when it was not in the CFP. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded a lot of people had significant interest in improving the crosswalk. Councilmember Bloom said that was not her question; she wanted to know how funding could be sought for a project without going through Council when the CFP and CIP come to the Council and Planning Board for public hearing. Mr. Williams responded there has been a great deal of interest in improving the pedestrian crossing experience at Pine Street. As it is a State route, staff contacted the State in an effort to convince them it was a meritorious project, not knowing whether the outcome would be the City building the crossway with funds from the State or if the State would construct the crosswalk with their own internal funding. It was included in the 2013 CIP; when the 2014 CIP was prepared, it was clear it would be a State project and it was not included in the City’s CIP. It was only when the bids were significantly higher than the available funds and the State contacted Edmonds for additional funds when they needed a local partner to pursue internal funding. That project will begin construction next week. Councilmember Bloom said a WSDOT announcement stated the project has been delayed until spring 2015. Mr. Williams advised that announcement was a mistake; the project is starting next week. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that this particular project was never vetted by Council, it was never the subject of a public hearing, and it was never on the CIP or CFP. In reviewing the proposed 2015-2020 CFP/CIP, she found several projects from $35,000 to $300,000. This project is $320,000 allocated to crosswalk that is 0.3 miles from an existing safe crosswalk and signal at Dayton Street and SR-104. She summarized, in essence without Council approval or any public hearing, public funds in the amount of $320,000 were allocated for a crosswalk so that people from Pt. Edwards didn’t have to walk 0.3 miles down to the crossing at Dayton Street and SR-104. Mr. Williams agreed it was not on the CFP/CIP. It was on the City’s program in the past, but was removed when it became a State project. The State received a grant for the project that was not enough and they asked for assistance from Edmonds. He absolutely believed it was a meritorious, important project and would improve safety at Pine Street. A lot of people who seek to cross SR-104 at that location are headed east of SR-104, not downtown. It would be much easier to cross at Pine Street at a safe crossing than to walk 0.3 mile to use the existing crosswalk and 0.3 mile back to get 50 feet from where a person started. Councilmember Bloom commented the crossing is not at Pine Street, it is ¼ mile down from Pine Street and 0.3 mile from Dayton. Mr. Williams explained it was not safe to place the crosswalk at Pine Street due to the speed of vehicles coming down the hill and around the corner; therefore, it was moved 200-300 feet south from the centerline of Pine Street to get clear sight distances. Council President Buckshnis asked what concerns arise when the administration has an opportunity to leverage funds but the project does not appear in any formal documents. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered a policy decision needs to be made whereby the Council decides how much leeway they want to give administration to act on these types of opportunities when they arise. If the Council wanted to draft its budget documents and CFP and CIP documents so tightly that the administration has no leeway, that could be done but it comes at the cost of not being able to pursue these types of opportunities. Historically the City’s documents have not been drafted so tightly to legally prevent this from happening. He summarized there was a legitimate policy question whether the administration should be given some leeway so they can act quickly to pursue things like this when they arise. Council President Buckshnis said she thought that was done via the policy adopted that following Haines Wharf that set limits for contracts that must be reviewed by Council. She asked whether that policy needed to be refined. Mr. Taraday answered Haines Wharf was a completely separate issue; that was related to a contracting limit that requires administration to bring change orders to the Council. Packet Page 16 of 787 For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between applying for and accepting a grant. The City is not under any obligation to accept grant funds once it a grant is awarded although the City would look bad to the granting agencies and potentially lose credibility if it rejected grants on a regular basis. He has noticed the Council and administration may not be on the same page about how to pursue grant funds and that a great deal of the frustration and tension regarding projects often stems from a grant application. It is a chicken and egg problem, what authority if any should the administration have to pursue grants; whether a project needs to be on a particular list in order to pursue a grant. There is legitimate policy debate the Council needs to have regarding these questions. Mr. Taraday commented another issue is prioritization of projects and who should prioritize projects, the Council or administration, and can the administration pursue a grant for any project in the CFP. In reality, administration has a better handle on what projects they can obtain funds for. The Council may have its prioritized list but there needs to be better dialogue between the Council and the administration regarding projects administration thinks funding can be obtained for which may not necessarily match the Council’s prioritized list. Council President Buckshnis commented using $10,000 to leverage $320,000 was a no brainer. She agreed there may need to be a policy because this issue keeps coming up. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Council President Buckshnis’ question and asked about the current policy with regard to this set of facts. Mr. Taraday answered the Council currently adopts the budget at the fund level which gives the administration the authority to reallocate funds as long as it does not overspend the appropriation for a given fund. For example, the crosswalk, he supposed the fund language was lenient to enough allow for some reallocation within the fund. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that the City did not receive a grant from the State for the crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed, adding the City did not apply for a grant. Councilmember Mesaros summarized therefore the project did not have to be on the CFP or CIP because it was not a City project. Councilmember Petso said she understood that staff can reallocate within the fund but she was not aware that staff could reallocate money to projects that are not on CFP, CIP or TIP. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on how the documents are drafted; he has not been asked to analyze whether the way the current budget is adopted gives the administration flexibility to reallocate funds to projects that are not otherwise on the list. If the Council approves a project such as a walkway and realistically funding is easier to obtain if the project is converted into a multiuse pathway, Councilmember Petso asked whether that decision should come back to Council or does approval of a walkway also approve a change in a project to cater to a grant opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered there was a policy question and a legal question. Legally it depends on how detailed the description of the project is. For example if the capital budget says in 2014 the City will spend money on these and only these capital projects and those capital projects are very carefully detailed in a manner that do not allow a change such as from a walkway to a multiuse path, it could not be done without a budget amendment. He did not know if that had been done in the past. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Buckshnis distributed a suggested format for the study session. 10. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO WESTGATE Council President Buckshnis relayed tonight is a trial run; there will be a format in place for the next study session on October 14. She described tonight’s format: a presentation from staff, followed by a Packet Page 17 of 787 round robin of questions where each Councilmember is allowed three questions, and continuing until all questions have been answered. If time permits after all the questions have been answered, the Council can have a global discussion. Planning Manager Rob Chave commented on the process to date including a Council public hearing on August 4, 2014. He provided examples of recent changes/adjustments: • Clarified standards for amenity space and open space, for example clarified 15% minimum for each, clarified where these can be located • Additional design standards for buildings • Incentives for large retail spaces With regard to traffic and setbacks: • Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) • 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in last 2014/early 2015 will identify any additional recommendations for ROW improvements • Setback requirements can be revised if needed With regard to parking: • Parking standards are minimums • Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900 square feet. Achieves two goals: o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) o Provides an added incentive for smaller units • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square foot • Existing grocery stores have a range 1 space per 350-370 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour; much less during other parts of day • Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided onsite (e.g. QFC property has 1 space per 475 square foot) • Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely many at 1/500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdictions • Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units Regarding lots and setbacks: • Commercial areas provide street and residential setbacks, but not other setbacks • Provides flexibility for locating and linking businesses Mr. Chave displayed and described an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. He explained commercial areas provide setback in two ways, 1) from residential areas, and 2) from streets. There are no side setbacks or minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. He noted the QFC and PCC buildings were set on several of their lot lines. QFC owns their property; PCC leases their property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and described the amenity/open space versus setbacks. He provided details regarding the McDonald’s property: • 190 feet deep • 400 feet wide • Approx. 50 foot old front setback (actual - which includes 5-foot landscaping strip) • Approx. 50 foot non-developed slope area • 76,000 total lot area Packet Page 18 of 787 • 11,400 - 15% amenity space required • 11,400 - 15% open space • 20,000 protected slope area 26.3% of total site • 4,800 front 12-foot setback 6.3% of total site • 8,000 front 20-foot setback 10.5% of total site • Development scenarios Existing Code New Code o Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 o Are available for building 62,000 44,600 o Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 With regard to amenity vs. open space: • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area, with a 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirement • Note: No other zone in the City has anything like these requirements With regard to commercial requirements: • Clarified the various building types to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types: Building Type Residential Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor He displayed the original and a revised building type map. With regard to building design, he explained: • A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, blank walls and ground floor ceiling heights. • Note that any 4th story “must be stepped back 10 feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Avenue West” (page 27) Mr. Chave displayed illustrations in the plan, largely taken from the commercial building standards for downtown. With regard to large format retail, he explained: • Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) 1) Adding bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (p. 38) 2) A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling space in a large format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail space is provided in building (page 6/7) • Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment Mr. Chave displayed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that qualified for height bonus. Packet Page 19 of 787 Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Chave’s statement that parking requirements are minimums. In the example of Bartell’s, if they feel they need more parking to redevelop they will provide it to enhance their business. Mr. Chave identified a lot behind Bartells that was provided in anticipation of a new building. Bartells provided more parking than they needed in anticipation of that additional development which did not occur due to the economy. Councilmember Peterson commented there is a certain point in development where the developer makes their decision; if the City does not overly restrict, the market will dictate what is required. Mr. Chave answered one aspect of the market is the developer’s experience or the store’s experience with the type of parking they need. A second factor is the bank/investor looks closely at the market, access and parking. The final phase is ensuring the proposal meets the City’s parking standards. If the parking standards are too tight, it can halt the process at the beginning particularly with infill in existing areas. In Bartell’s case, they have a well-defined site and parking; they have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking for their store. Mr. Chase commented another significant issue is the existing investments and ownership patterns. Bartells is in the process acquiring the entire corner; they currently only own store. QFC owns their property and have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking. QFC did a significant interior remodel approximately five years ago and is a very successful store even with PCC across the street. He did not fore see any of the main anchors, PCC, QFC or Bartells, moving out any time soon because they very successful. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any requirement that the entire first floor of the Type 7 buildings be commercial versus tuck-under or semi-underground parking. Mr. Chave did not recall any specific numbers. Councilmember Petso asked why amenity space was allowed to be in the setback area or six feet underground or six feet above ground. If the amenity space was in the setback area, she feared it may be close to the road. If the amenity space is underground or above ground, it may be nearly inaccessible and potentially invisible to passersby. She asked why that type of the amenity would be desired. Mr. Chave answered the reason for the six-foot requirement was to bring it down, close to the ground. In areas that have this type of amenity space such as plazas, there are frequently multiple levels, integrated seating, or a multi-functional plaza that serves as an outdoor amphitheater. The intent of the six feet was to make it pedestrian scale but also provide flexibility with regard to how the space was arranged. A requirement for ground floor would not provide for that type of varied areas. With regard to the setback, in the McDonald’s example, Mr. Chave explained if there is a 12-foot front setback there is already a reserved area behind near the slope; adding the amenity space leaves very little site area. The area cannot be used for parking and a McDonald’s is not going to have parking under the building which may rule out a use like a McDonald’s. Many sites will be hard pressed to satisfy the amenity space requirement even if the amenity space is in the front. If a walkway is provided near the right-of-way, for example the new landscaping/walkway area in front of Walgreens, the walkway is wider than the usual 4-5 feet. Near Walgreens there is a 5-foot planting area and a 7-foot wide walkway. The right-of-way was only 10 feet; in order to construct the additional walkway, an easement was obtained from the property owner to expand the walkway. The sidewalk does not count as amenity space; they still have to provide the 15%. Councilmember Petso asked why language was added during this latest update that the buildings may not stand in isolation (page 193), noting it would seem to contribute to the side-lot to side-lot corridor effect down SR-104 and along 100th. Mr. Chave recalled that language was added to clarify that buildings need to be connected to the other buildings, sidewalks and walkways and not standing in isolation. Mr. Taraday Packet Page 20 of 787 recalled that was added to clarify other language. Councilmember Petso asked why that was desirable, to have buildings connected along the stretch. Mr. Chave clarified it was not buildings physically connected wall to wall, the intent was connectivity between the buildings such as walkways, pathways, connected drives, etc. He suggested clarifying the language if that was not clear. Council President Buckshnis said having the amenity space stratified is great, referring to downtown Lake Oswego. She asked whether there was an art aspect to the amenity space. Mr. Chave answered language could be included that encourages art as part of the amenity space or added to the score sheet. Council President Buckshnis relayed she understood the concept of not having buildings stand in isolation. Mr. Chave commented the concept will fail if there is a building in a large parking and no way to get to from that building to buildings nearby. Council President Buckshnis commented PCC was very successful, they have a 30 year lease but their building is isolated. Mr. Chave agreed it was somewhat isolated but they have areas in front. The intent with redevelopment is things like changes in the paving and trees planted along walkways to identify the location of the walkway. Businesses like PCC may be willing to partner with the City. Council President Buckshnis referred to the old fashioned sidewalks along SR-104. She asked whether the plan includes streetscapes with trees between the roadway and sidewalk to separate pedestrians from the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed yes, referring to the newer scheme in front of Walgreens and the multifamily development near Compass that separates pedestrians from the roadway. Councilmember Johnson commented last week the Council authorized the SR-104 which has a Westgate emphasis. She asked how the results of the Westgate Transportation Study will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the SR-104 study will occur late 2014/early 2015. By that time she assumed the code would be adopted along with the minor changes to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will then come back for review by the Planning Board, Transportation Committee and City Council and elements will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan via the Transportation Element or other plans such as the Streetscape Plan. Any potential code changes could also be adopted at that time. Councilmember Johnson commented it was important for the public to understand the two will eventually be connected. Councilmember Johnson commented the purpose and intent of the Westgate code calls for designing a landscape emphasis at the primary intersection of SR-104 & 100th/9th. Regardless of whether the existing 20-foot setback is retained or the proposed 12-foot setback adopted, she asked how the landscape emphasis will be achieved at the intersection. Mr. Chave commented the additional stepback which will result in the buildings being quite low. It may be worthwhile to add language regarding signature plaza spaces and water features in addition to landscaping. He agreed that was an important concept, visitors should have a feeling that they have arrived somewhere. Councilmember Johnson observed SR-104 has a natural environment notable for tall stands of evergreen trees. She asked how the green factors score sheet could be modified if there was a desire for greater emphasis on native trees. Mr. Chave responded one of the reasons for the protected slopes was due to the location of the large evergreens. An option would be to increase the points in the table for native vegetation. There is a significant bonus for protecting existing trees. Councilmember Johnson observed the bonus is 1 for bio-retention, .8 for protecting large existing trees and .1 for native. She suggested increasing the bonus for native trees. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the protected slopes and the emphasis on protecting trees in general; the bonus could be increased for protecting native species. Packet Page 21 of 787 Councilmember Bloom observed the proposal was to allow 4 stories on the Bartell property with a 12- foot setback and an additional 5 feet in height would be allowed for 15,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed the building could not subdivided below 15,000 square feet of retail space for the life of building. She asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Chave said it would need to be provided upfront and the City sees all tenant improvements; any tenant improvement that would divide the space below 15,000 square feet would be denied. Mr. Taraday advised there would likely be something recorded against the title of any property taking advantage of the 15,000 square foot height bonus to create a permanent record on the title that so all future permit applications would be reviewed in light of that restriction. Councilmember Bloom observed commercial mixed use was allowed on all properties, other uses are sprinkled throughout and some quadrants only allow a portion of commercial mixed use for example QFC. There was concern expressed at her Town Hall meeting about a tunnel effect if every property were developed commercial mixed use and located 12 feet from the road. Mr. Chave said the idea of tunnel was the vertical space relative to the horizontal space. He referred to downtown where there is a 60-foot right-of-way, an average of 30 foot building on both sides with no setbacks. At Westgate there is an 80- foot right-of-way, 12-foot setback and 35 foot buildings with the potential of an additional l0-15 feet of height. He summarized in terms of scale to the right-of-way, the buildings in Westgate were similar to the overall proportion of downtown. He did not see that as having a tunnel effect. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was a reason for allowing commercial mixed use on every property when QFC and PCC were not likely to redevelop. Mr. Chave commented there was a misconception about what that means, pointing out QFC, PCC, McDonalds are commercial buildings although they are different shapes and sizes and if they had residential, they would be commercial mixed use. The idea is not one size fits all; commercial mixed use buildings will each look different, especially at the intersection where a stepback is required on a 4-story building. That combined with the design standards that require differentiating the ground floor from the upper floors, the appearance of separate sections even in a larger building, etc. that will interact to mitigate the fear of a tunnel look to the development. Councilmember Bloom commented Mr. Barber, who owns Bartells, was at the Town Hall meeting and was very concerned about the parking. Recalling a conversation she and Councilmember Petso had with Mr. Doherty, Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave, she asked whether the plan could start with the Bartells quadrant, work on that quadrant with Bartells, and do the other quadrants later once the SR-104 transportation study is completed since they are unlikely to redevelop. Ms. Hope responded anything is possible. Her understanding was there has been a deliberative process over 3-4 years to look at all 4 quadrants and how they affect each other. Although each quadrant could be considered separately, there is value in having a plan that works reasonably for all four quadrants and fine-tune it based on development that occurs in one of the quadrants. Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns expressed at the Town Hall meeting included traffic patterns, crossing SR-104 and 100th, parking, ingress and egress, existing parking difficulties at QFC, and driving from QFC to PCC. She summarized pedestrian crossing is not convenient and that is something the SR- 104 study will consider. Ms. Hope responded some of the traffic issues have been studied and it may be that perception is not the same as what is actually proposed. The SR-104 analysis will be done within a few months and a lot of the concerns will be addressed. Councilmember Mesaros observed QFC’s existing parking is 1/475 square feet. He inquired about PCC’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet in the area immediately in front. Most commercial areas have blended/spill over parking. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about Goodwill’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is shared parking. Packet Page 22 of 787 Councilmember Mesaros said he has heard canyon-effect mentioned and appreciated Mr. Chave’s comparison of the right-of-way and buildings in Westgate to downtown. He asked whether the proposed zoning allow would allow 4-story buildings all along the corridor. Mr. Chave identified areas where 4, 3, and 2 story buildings would be allowed, noting it is not a uniform 4 stories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed heights up to 4 stories would be allowed at the cross of the quadrants at Edmonds Way and 100th/9th. Mr. Chave identified 2 sides where 4-story buildings would be allowed and 2 sides where 3-story buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could potentially feel like canyon or tunnel in the center. Mr. Chave did not think so, particularly with the stepback at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the walkability of University Village, recalling the series of roads through University Village in the past. She asked the timeframe for making a decision on this plan. Mr. Chave envisioned Thanksgiving. He feared if a decision was delayed too long, it would take a backseat to the budget. Councilmember Peterson agreed it is not comfortable walk on the sidewalk on SR-104 but the concept via redevelopment in 20-30 years is to create internal walkability and a pedestrian friendly shopping and living experience. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the raised sidewalks in U-Village clearly identify the pedestrian areas. To Councilmember Bloom suggestion to do one quadrant at a time, Councilmember Peterson asked whether that would be a radical change to the Planning Board’s recommendation and require restarting the public process and holding another public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered worst case scenario another public hearing would need to be held to ensure the GMA requirement for public participation was met. As a practical matter, because the other properties are unlikely to redevelop it may not matter whether a plan for the entire area is adopted and tweaked later or only a plan for the quadrant that is likely to develop sooner. Mr. Chave explained it was within the Council discretion to do a phased approach; however, it is unknown what the property owners outside the SR-104 & 100th/9th intersection are considering. The City is limited in what it can do to improve the flow and access until some redevelopment occurs. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there were grant funds available for overpasses between the quadrants. She referred to overpasses in Charlotte. Ms. Hope answered there are no grants available in Washington for that at this time. She agreed connectivity between the quadrants was an important element. Mr. Taraday suggested an overpass could be added to the amenity score sheet for a height bonus; it was more likely to occur that way rather than via grant funding. Council President Buckshnis asked if there was a percentage of residential in the plan. Ms. Hope answered for example residential cannot be on the first floor. Some property owners may prefer office space to commercial. Council President Buckshnis asked how Councilmembers should inform staff of additional incentives. Ms. Hope suggested sending information to staff to allow further research. Council President Buckshnis suggested adding art. Councilmember Johnson observed properties in the Westgate area have varied height limits depending on the location and topography. She asked the Planning Board’s rationale for four stories in the QFC quadrant where there is flat topography. Mr. Chave displayed the height map, explaining there are no slopes in the QFC area but the cemetery separates the site from the surrounding area. Four stories were not allowed in the northeast due to its small size. Councilmember Johnson referred to the intersection analysis done by Jennifer Barnes in June 2013 for the SR-104/100th intersection. She asked Mr. Chave to contrast that analysis with the new transportation Packet Page 23 of 787 study of Westgate with regard to the forecast years, land use assumptions and the scope of work. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Barnes supplemented the analysis in the Transportation Plan where the planning horizon is 2025, analyzing overall volumes, turning movements, levels of service, signalization, etc. The 2015 update will expand the horizon to 2035. The UW’s analysis assumed 4-5 stories; the impact of the current 2-4 story plan will be substantially less. Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Barnes’ analysis was of the intersection; the transportation study will consider other components. Mr. Chave agreed, especially the SR-104 study. Councilmember Bloom referred page 7c regarding building not standing in isolation, specifically the last sentence that states, will achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by allowing such an exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking shall not be located between the building and the public street in any instance. She asked whether the eventual goal was no parking in front of QFC or PCC and for buildings to be located up to the street. Mr. Chave answered the intent is to form the spaces for parking and pedestrian circulation in the area internal to the quadrant by the placement of the buildings. The old strip mall model is parking lot in front with buildings set back with a sign identifying the tenants. When buildings are closer to the sidewalk, they provide a presence at the street front. Councilmember Bloom observed the goal of the plan was for all buildings to be close to the street. Mr. Chave answered all the buildings would not be at the street because the property configuration of some would not allow the buildings to be placed at the street. The general principle is to have the buildings at the street. If the buildings are not at the street, there will be limited ability to create interconnected spaces, aisles and driveways behind the buildings. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any accommodation made for bike trails. Mr. Chave answered they are not precluded, they could be provided as part of the connections but would be limited by space. The emphasis is along 9th because it is a challenge to provide a bike trail to the east. The north and east connectors in the City’s existing bike plans are further north. The language regarding internal circulation could be expanded to emphasize bikes. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the plan regarding units less than 900 square feet, a percentage allowed to be over 1600 square and encouraging affordable housing. She emphasize that was not affordable housing; affordable housing was when a person paid no more than 1/3 of their income for housing. As it appeared there was interest in providing affordable housing at Westgate, she asked why actual affordable housing was not included in the plan. Mr. Chave explained the City did not have an affordable housing program; there was no zoning regulation to require affordable housing in a development. He and Ms. Hope have discussed developing that type of program but it would take a couple years including working with the Housing Authority and the new Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) of Snohomish County. If such a program were developed, it could be added to the Westgate plan; another potential location is nodes on Hwy 99 that are close to transit. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson referred to the proposal to maintain 15,000 square feet for the life of a building and observed that would preclude the old Albertsons from being dividing to provide space for a pet store as well as prohibit the former Safeway from being developed as Salish Crossing. She questioned whether that was a good idea. Mr. Chave answered the developer would have to be seeking the fourth story for that requirement to be imposed. Second, it would only require 15,000 square feet; for example if the old Albertsons had 20,000 square feet, they could designate 15,000 for PCC and the remainder for other stores. Mayor Earling suggested for future study session discussions, staff be seated at the table. Packet Page 24 of 787 Councilmember Petso advised she would email staff with a number of requests for future presentations. She suggested deleting the provision that allow using a portion of the sidewalk in the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, etc. Although currently allowed downtown, it would not make sense on SR-104. Council President Buckshnis commented it may not be appropriate on SR-104 but it could be appropriate in other areas in Westgate. Councilmember Petso suggested a requirement that the first floor be devoted to retail and not parking. As examples she referred to the Compass Apartments where parking is provided in back under the units and a building in Shoreline near Costco where there most of the ground floor is parking. She feared turning a vibrant business district into parking holding up residential. Council President Buckshnis referred to the parking configuration allowed downtown. Councilmember Petso answered there is already a walkable pedestrian area downtown. She relayed comments about why the City wants to create a second walkable pedestrian area. She wanted to ensure Westgate retained legitimate commercial uses on the first floor. Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking on 9th in front of the cemetery, assuming it was employee parking. She asked whether consideration had been given to offsite parking for employees to better accommodate customer parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is also commuter parking for people taking the bus because there are no time limits on the parking in that area. Council President Buckshnis clarified smaller units can be affordable housing. She envisioned a walkable neighborhood with residential away from SR-104. Councilmember Bloom pointed out affordable housing has a specific definition, there is no guarantee a 900 square foot unit is affordable. She agreed with Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion to have residential setback from SR-104 but that was not what this plan proposed. The plan allows commercial mixed use everywhere and only one of the residential uses, rowhouses, was strictly residential; everything else is mixed use including the live-work. She preferred to designate where residential is allowed and that it be setback and private. This plan allows buildings up to 4 stories of mixed use at the Bartell and QFC mixed use with 3 stories of residential and 1 floor of commercial and parking to accommodate the uses. Council President Buckshnis did not support designating where specific building types could be located. Councilmember Peterson referred to the presentation by Mark Smith, AHA, who pointed out there are a number of striations to affordable housing including what the private sector provides and what the City could provide via an affordable housing program. Mr. Smith indicated Edmonds is woefully inadequate in both regards; the affordable housing the private sector provides is typically smaller units. Encouraging smaller units in Westgate and throughout the City is an excellent way for the private sector to provide affordable housing. If housing was restricted to specific areas such as rowhouses that are private, it automatically increases the footprint and the price and would eliminate the sector of affordable housing that can be provided by the private sector. The more the location of housing is restricted, the worse the opportunity for providing any type of affordable housing. This type of development is needed throughout the City; there are opportunities in Westgate, downtown, Hwy 99 and Five Corners. Councilmember Petso agreed small units are not affordable housing and recalled Mr. Smith saying that. There may be less construction costs but the smaller size does not make them affordable housing particularly for families who cannot live in a small unit. She relayed the public wants to identify the places at Westgate where they are willing to accept taller building and residential units and not interfere with other areas at Westgate; that is not what this plan does. 11. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. Packet Page 25 of 787 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he, several staff and citizens attended a reception today for Gary Haakenson’s retirement from Snohomish County. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis thanked the Council for trying the study session. She invited Councilmembers’ suggestion for future study sessions such as a timeframe for questions instead of the round robin. Establishing a format will be on the October 14 agenda. Councilmember Johnson reminded of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District’s premiere of the Ed! program at their luncheon tomorrow, Snohomish County Tomorrow’s annual meeting tomorrow and the Tour of the Marsh on October 4 at 10:30 a.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she was in Cabo during the recent hurricane. 14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Packet Page 26 of 787 AM-7175 5. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #210630 through #210754 dated September 25, 2014 for $616,827.50 and claim checks #210755 through #210890 dated October 2, 2014 for $873,848.64. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61207 through #61231 for $484,386.53, benefit checks #61232 through #61240 and wire payments of $411,475.61 for the period September 16, 2014 through September 30, 2014. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:2,386,838.28 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,490,676.14 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $484,386.53 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $411,775.61 Total Payroll $896,162.14 Attachments Claim cks 09-25-14a Claim ck 09-25-14b Packet Page 27 of 787 Claim ck 09-25-14b Claim cks 10-02-14 Project Numbers 10-02-14 Payroll Summary 09-30-14 Payroll Benefit 09-30-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/02/2014 11:54 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 12:55 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 01:00 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 01:05 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/02/2014 08:52 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 28 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210630 9/25/2014 072627 911 ETC INC 29137 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 210631 9/25/2014 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 13-16097 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 153.52 Total :153.52 210632 9/25/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 339443 WWTP - PEST CONTROL September Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94 Total :79.94 210633 9/25/2014 072189 ACCESS 0727687 storage files storage files 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 65.00 SHRED FEES0727803 SHRED FEES 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 50.00 STORAGE FILES0754656 File storage 8/31 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 65.00 INV#0754762 CUST#STC61515 - EDMONDS PD0754762 SHRED 2 TOTES 8/14/14 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00 Total :260.00 210634 9/25/2014 065737 ADI VT9J5801 Parks - Sound System Battery Parks - Sound System Battery 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 14.50 PW - Fire Panel Battery 1Page: Packet Page 29 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210634 9/25/2014 (Continued)065737 ADI 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 113.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.83 FAC - Sound System BatteryVV2H5901 FAC - Sound System Battery 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 14.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.38 Total :156.57 210635 9/25/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9558 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 170,975.28 Total :170,975.28 210636 9/25/2014 075017 ALPINE RECOVERY SERVICES INC NILS140224 In patient and out patient In patient and out patient 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 1,550.00 Total :1,550.00 210637 9/25/2014 001634 AQUA QUIP 857902-1 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING silk tabs, 25 Lb. 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 499.95 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 47.50 Total :547.45 210638 9/25/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987625928 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.41 Total :63.41 210639 9/25/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0628480-IN Fleet - Reg 7,000 Gal 2Page: Packet Page 30 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210639 9/25/2014 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM Fleet - Reg 7,000 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 20,502.30 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2,787.40 Biodsl - 185 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 779.37 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 75.38 Diesel - 3515 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 10,516.18 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,401.93 Wa St Sv Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 25.00 Wa St Sv Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 2.37 Total :36,117.31 210640 9/25/2014 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00139803 PS - RPBA Repair Kit PS - RPBA Repair Kit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 136.77 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.78 Total :146.55 210641 9/25/2014 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 79847 Unit K94 - Replace graphics on drivers Unit K94 - Replace graphics on drivers 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 128.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 12.16 3Page: Packet Page 31 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :140.162106419/25/2014 001795 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 210642 9/25/2014 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Oct 2014 AWC OCT 2014 AWC Oct 2014 AWC 811.000.231.510 62,015.02 Total :62,015.02 210643 9/25/2014 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 1769 BLUE CITY MONTHLY SEPT 2014 QUARTER PAG Blue City Monthly quarter page ad in 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 625.00 Total :625.00 210644 9/25/2014 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 590 Annual Maintenance Fee for DSD Permit Annual Maintenance Fee for DSD Permit 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 6,570.00 Total :6,570.00 210645 9/25/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 81422-80 INV#81422-80 - EDMONDS PD - LEE ATACSHIELD MENS BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.25 INV#81422-80 CR FOR BOOTS - LEE81422-80 CR STRIKER BOOTS RETURNED 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -240.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -22.80 INV#90160 - EDMONDS PD - HATS (INVENTORY90160 BASEBALL HATS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.75 EMBROIDERY "EDMONDS POLICE" 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.43 INV#91680 - EDMONDS PD - LEE91680 BELT KEEPERS/D-RING 4Page: Packet Page 32 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210645 9/25/2014 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.09 Total :45.66 210646 9/25/2014 003075 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 90100464 E1GA.FLAGGER SERVICES E1GA.Flagger Services 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 6,289.96 Total :6,289.96 210647 9/25/2014 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1042908 E4FA&E2FB.PUBLISH PROJECT ONLINE E4FA&E2FB.Publish Project Online 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 49.90 E3DC/E4FA&E2FB/E4JA.PUBL;ISH BID AND BID1043267 E3DC.PUBLISH BID DOCS 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 45.15 E4FA&E2FB.Publish Bid Tab 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 0.15 E4JA.Publish Bid Tab 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1.50 Total :96.70 210648 9/25/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14167231 Canon Lease printer copier Council Canon Lease printer copier Council 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 CANNON CONTRACT CHARGES14167232 Canon contract charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33 Canon contract charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33 Canon contract charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 33 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210648 9/25/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 INV#14167235 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD14167235 B/W METER USE 6-30-8/31/14 (3) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 220.25 COLOR METER USE 6/30-8/31/14 (3) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 113.43 B/W METER USE 7/31-8/31/14 (1) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 17.50 COLOR METER USE 7/31-8/31/14 (1) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 105.95 MONTHLY COPY RENTAL (4) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 98.68 CITY CLERK COPIER LEASE14167236 Lease City Copier 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 PARKS & REC C5051 COPIER CHARGE14167237 PARKS & REC C5051 COPIER CHARGE 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE14167238 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 Lease - Bld printer/copier14167240 Lease - Bld printer/copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00414172194 Finance dept copier contract charge 6Page: Packet Page 34 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210648 9/25/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 Total :2,315.70 210649 9/25/2014 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 2523-232638 Unit 90 - Fuel Pump Assembly Unit 90 - Fuel Pump Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 215.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.50 Total :236.29 210650 9/25/2014 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC PN16055 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC Powerware 9170 battery backup 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,441.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 136.95 Total :1,578.51 210651 9/25/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 210632 Fleet - Supplies Fleet - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.84 Total :67.29 210652 9/25/2014 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 42340583 INV#42340583 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 189.81 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 1.90 Total :191.71 210653 9/25/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10999 INV#10999 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B AUGUST 2014 7Page: Packet Page 35 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210653 9/25/2014 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 396.67 Total :396.67 210654 9/25/2014 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.93 Total :15.93 210655 9/25/2014 071680 CODE 4 LLC 87445 INV#87445 - EDMONDS PD EOTECH X320 THERMAL IMAGER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 2,837.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 269.55 Total :3,106.95 210656 9/25/2014 073387 COLELLA, CAROL 9/18/14 VOLLEYBALL 9/11-9/18/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 9/11-9/18/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 70.00 Total :70.00 210657 9/25/2014 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO# 26023 Unit K94 - Repairs Unit K94 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 722.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 68.61 Unit K94 - Repairs after InsuranceRO# 26024 Unit K94 - Repairs after Insurance 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,000.00 Unit 93 - RepairsRO#25833 Unit 93 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 970.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 92.21 Total :2,853.65 210658 9/25/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3292299 MARINA BEACH LEGAL AD 8Page: Packet Page 36 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210658 9/25/2014 (Continued)006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE MARINA BEACH RFQ LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 186.20 Total :186.20 210659 9/25/2014 074928 DALE TURNER FAMILY YMCA SEP-14 FINAL PAYMENT FOR YOST POOL OPERATIONS 8 FINAL PAYMENT FOR YOST POOL OPERATIONS 001.000.64.575.51.41.00 5,108.29 Total :5,108.29 210660 9/25/2014 066028 DANIELS, JASON 9/11/14 Sick Leave Buy Back for 8/21/14-8/24/14 Sick Leave Buy Back for 8/21/14-8/24/14 421.000.74.534.80.11.00 12.20 Total :12.20 210661 9/25/2014 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 092314 WWTP - TRAINING, BRIAN FUNK Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.00 Total :50.00 210662 9/25/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING SEPT 2014 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 58.19 Total :58.19 210663 9/25/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3483 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 402.60 Total :402.60 210664 9/25/2014 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 14-2325.1 E3DE.TO 14-03.SERVICES THRU 8/3/14 E3DE.TO 14-03.Services thru 8/3/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,611.88 Total :2,611.88 210665 9/25/2014 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 09242014 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD 2014 Tourism promotion award for 2014 9Page: Packet Page 37 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210665 9/25/2014 (Continued)071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 12,500.00 Total :12,500.00 210666 9/25/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 959 SEPTEMBER CHAMBER LUNCH FOR DIRECTOR September Chamber of Commerce luncheon 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 20.00 Total :20.00 210667 9/25/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000355 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES EXT CORD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.23 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES000367 BATTERIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.85 Total :24.06 210668 9/25/2014 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 4101 E3GA.PARKING LOT RENTAL 9/1-9/30/14 E3GA.Parking Lot Rental 9/1-9/30/14 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 750.00 Total :750.00 210669 9/25/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 PARKS MARINA BEACH PARK PARKS MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,897.19 PARKS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200 PARKS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,321.44 PARKS BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 PARKS BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,268.32 PARKS ANWAY PARK6-00475 10Page: Packet Page 38 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210669 9/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PARKS ANWAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,803.82 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 234.71 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,851.82 PARKS CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 PARKS CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 3,619.27 PARKS CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 PARKS CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,680.37 PARKS PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PARKS PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,056.10 PARKS 310 6TH AVE N6-02727 PARKS 310 6TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 413.37 PARKS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD6-02730 PARKS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 297.18 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,583.96 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,103.62 11Page: Packet Page 39 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210669 9/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 687.48 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6,849.31 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63 PARKS FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER6-02900 PARKS FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,141.41 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,528.31 PARKS CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT6-03000 PARKS CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 417.00 PARKS HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 PARKS HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.43 PARKS MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 PARKS MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 233.15 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 982.28 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 PARKS SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 PARKS SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,010.32 PARKS 8100 185TH PL SW6-04425 PARKS 8100 185TH PL SW 12Page: Packet Page 40 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210669 9/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 414.51 PARKS SIERRA PARK6-04450 PARKS SIERRA PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,989.65 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 165.12 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 627.44 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 627.44 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 627.44 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 627.44 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 627.45 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94 PARKS MATHAY BALLINGER PARK6-07775 PARKS MATHAY BALLINGER PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,038.72 PARKS YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 13Page: Packet Page 41 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210669 9/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PARKS YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 922.93 PARKS YOST POOL6-08525 PARKS YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 3,251.50 Total :44,147.63 210670 9/25/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 103249 WWTP - OFFICE MACHINES MAINTENANCE office machine maintenance, August 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 53.09 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 5.04 METER READING103657 Recept. Copier 7/21 to 8/21 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 14.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.40 METER READING104057 Meter Reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 158.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 15.05 PARKS MAINT C1030 COPIER CHARGES104175 1 PARKS MAINT C1030 COPIER CHARGES 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 19.61 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE104638 Maintenance for printers 09/21/14 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68 METER READING104686 Recept. Copier 8/21 to 9/21 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 10.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 0.96 14Page: Packet Page 42 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :655.112106709/25/2014 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 210671 9/25/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH586637 MARINA BEACH RFQ LEGAL AD MARINA BEACH RFQ LEGAL AD 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 92.88 Total :92.88 210672 9/25/2014 071640 EVERGREEN ID SYSTEMS LLC 8485 ID Badge printer cartridge ID Badge printer cartridge 001.000.22.518.10.35.00 104.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.35.00 9.89 Total :114.04 210673 9/25/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33239 Unit 91 - Supplies Unit 91 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.32 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU33461 AIRGRINDER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 72.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.93 Total :83.60 210674 9/25/2014 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 24611-00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC 2 digital displays & power supply 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 836.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 79.51 Total :916.44 210675 9/25/2014 075015 FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING 5606931408 INV 5606931408 ACCT 941978 3 CREDIT CHECKS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 27.00 15Page: Packet Page 43 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :27.002106759/25/2014 075015 075015 FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING 210676 9/25/2014 071562 FORMA BID-091814 GRAPHICS FOR WAYFINDING SIGNAGE 50% COMP Graphics for wayfinding signage with 627.000.61.558.70.41.00 431.00 9.5% Sales Tax 627.000.61.558.70.41.00 40.95 Total :471.95 210677 9/25/2014 075011 FROEHLICH, TONAE REFUND 9/18/14 REFUND FOR UNUSED MONITOR FEES REFUND FOR UNUSED MONITOR FEES 001.000.239.200 22.50 Total :22.50 210678 9/25/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.57 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 31.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.90 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 79.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 66.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 66.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 89.00 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 59.14 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.64 16Page: Packet Page 44 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :566.812106789/25/2014 011900 011900 FRONTIER 210679 9/25/2014 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 30584 E3GA.SITE #6.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2014 E3GA.Site #6.Services thru August 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,686.25 E3GA.SITE #2.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 201430626 E3GA.Site #2.Services thru August 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,675.00 Total :4,361.25 210680 9/25/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9540885762 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES RPLMT LENS, SAFETY GLASSES, HARD HAT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 233.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.14 Total :255.32 210681 9/25/2014 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 974783944 WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE electrical supplies 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 327.00 Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 33.44 Total :385.44 210682 9/25/2014 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197305 PHOTOS OF CAR SHOW MISCELLANEOUS SHOOT September photos - car show, 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 210683 9/25/2014 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 147480 Unit 136 - Trans Lever Unit 136 - Trans Lever 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 59.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.70 Unit 105 - ACM Radio147605 17Page: Packet Page 45 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210683 9/25/2014 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC Unit 105 - ACM Radio 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.60 Unit 450 - Inst Cluster147793 Unit 450 - Inst Cluster 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 378.29 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.94 Unit 93 - RepairsFOCS368661 Unit 93 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 281.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 26.77 Total :1,095.07 210684 9/25/2014 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00175331-B WWTP - PORFESSIONAL SERVICE, OPERATIONS 8.14 Emergency Process Control ORP 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7,450.59 Total :7,450.59 210685 9/25/2014 064528 HI-LINE ELECTRICAL 10327462 Fleet Shop - Supplies Fleet Shop - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 227.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 21.58 Total :248.88 210686 9/25/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 10947247 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 36.41 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.46 Water - Supplies2031229 Water - Supplies 18Page: Packet Page 46 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210686 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.50 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.43 Fac Maint - Small Tool - Reciprocating2031271 Fac Maint - Small Tool - Reciprocating 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 258.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 24.51 Grandstands - Supplies2031321 Grandstands - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.61 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies2045709 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.90 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Truck Supplies280613 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.17 FAC - Supplies3040947 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.09 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Step Ladders,3041004 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Step Ladders, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 116.97 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 52.00 9.5% Sales Tax 19Page: Packet Page 47 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210686 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.05 Roadway - Marking Paint31777 Roadway - Marking Paint 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 21.08 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 2.00 FAC - Supplie31792 FAC - Supplie 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.87 FAC - Supplies41609 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.59 FAC - Supplies5042758 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.68 FAC - Supplies5042848 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.93 PS Court - Door Viewer Supplies5071682 PS Court - Door Viewer Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.34 Library - Supplies574828 Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.06 20Page: Packet Page 48 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210686 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.71 FAC - Supplies6042588 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.73 Roadway - Crack Seal6042696 Roadway - Crack Seal 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 26.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 2.56 Sewer - Supplies6062942 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.80 Grand Stands - Supplies6092980 Grand Stands - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.78 Traffic - Supplies7030093 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.44 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.90 Sewer - Supplies7092155 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.63 Library - Supplies75334 Library - Supplies 21Page: Packet Page 49 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210686 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.80 Fac Maint Shop - Supplies8044373 Fac Maint Shop - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 123.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.77 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies8092503 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.55 Fac Maint Shop - Shop Vac Return8271482 Fac Maint Shop - Shop Vac Return 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -46.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -4.46 FAC - Toilet Seat9032043 FAC - Toilet Seat 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.04 Fac Maint Shop Supplies9044143 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.46 Roadway - Supplies9091566 Roadway - Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 73.41 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 6.97 Sewer - Couplings, Nozzles, Supplies9100516 22Page: Packet Page 50 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210686 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Sewer - Couplings, Nozzles, Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 57.43 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.46 Sewer - Supplies94877 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 71.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.83 Fac Maint - Supplies9575111 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.22 Total :1,364.30 210687 9/25/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2045727 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES INDPISTOLNZL, PVC CPL, RPLMT BASKET, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 84.85 PARKS MAINT WATERWELD4020252 PARKS MAINT WATERWELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.32 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES4041365 WATERWELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.27 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES4080106 WATERWELD, HOMER BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 85.18 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES5061176 PVC 40 PEPIPE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.07 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES5082501 PVC TEES, PVC UNION, AA 10 PACK, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.98 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES6062956 23Page: Packet Page 51 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210687 9/25/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 30 SEC GAL, GREASE, HOSE, TREE PRUNER, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 81.33 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES6091922 LEG TIPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.01 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES7091551 PLANTER PAL TOOLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.67 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES72523 WATERWELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.59 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8046816 AZB LHRPFB, FGPRONAPA, 7" MTL CUT, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 102.68 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8046830 2 X 6 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 38.46 Total :538.41 210688 9/25/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2506683 WWTP - SUPPLIES, SAFETY nice pak sani-coth disinfecting surface 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 -13.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 -1.28 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS2510986 purell hand sanitizer 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 99.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 9.49 Varioius office supplies DSD2512577 Varioius office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 438.57 COLLEGE RULED WRITING PADS2513774 Ampad double sheet college ruled 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 43.92 24Page: Packet Page 52 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210688 9/25/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.17 DSD Drafting table and base2513785 DSD Drafting table and base 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 381.06 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2513811 pens, pads, and laminating sheets 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 48.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 4.61 Paper for DSD2515978 Paper for DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 16.23 Total :1,031.78 210689 9/25/2014 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12345431 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 948.39 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46 Total :961.31 210690 9/25/2014 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000033927 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 150.86 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 15.46 Total :178.22 210691 9/25/2014 070192 JA SEXAUER 318897246 FAC - Supplies FAC - Supplies 25Page: Packet Page 53 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210691 9/25/2014 (Continued)070192 JA SEXAUER 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.03 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.14 Total :47.67 210692 9/25/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 631718 WWTP - HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite sollution, 4733 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,603.15 hazardous substance tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 18.22 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 247.30 Total :2,868.67 210693 9/25/2014 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 19145 DIGITAL PHOTOG 19145 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19145 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 43.00 Total :43.00 210694 9/25/2014 067568 KPG INC 88214 E3DC.SERVICES THRU 8/25/14 E3DC.Services thru 8/25/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 4,803.17 Total :4,803.17 210695 9/25/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 33688 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 8/2/14 E3FH.Services thru 8/2/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 15,771.33 Total :15,771.33 210696 9/25/2014 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 117 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 26Page: Packet Page 54 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210697 9/25/2014 075012 LIEB, AMY 9/18/14 REFUND 9/18/14 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE & DAMA REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 7.50 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total :507.50 210698 9/25/2014 075008 LITHTEX NORHTWEST, LLC 47513 CHT BROCHURES CHT BROCHURES 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 377.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 35.82 Total :412.82 210699 9/25/2014 075014 LOCALIST CORPORATION 1395 LICENSE FOR ARTS, CULTURE & EVENTS CALEN License for one year for arts, culture, 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 5,500.00 Total :5,500.00 210700 9/25/2014 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 14923 Unit 452 - Repairs Unit 452 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 291.75 Total :291.75 210701 9/25/2014 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 005567-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES BRZ S40 NIP, HAND PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 61.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.88 Total :67.80 210702 9/25/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6949 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/14 E1DA.Services thru 8/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,797.40 Total :2,797.40 210703 9/25/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1387 INTERPRETER FEE 27Page: Packet Page 55 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210703 9/25/2014 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1388 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1389 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1390 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1391 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1393 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 Total :529.92 210704 9/25/2014 070028 MCA 102714 PROBATION TRAINING RICK PROBATION TRAINING RICK 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 25.00 Total :25.00 210705 9/25/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 12039302 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL Type 316 stainless steel stud anchor 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 83.90 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.03 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL12254386 Hytrel Spider shaft coupling 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 443.34 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.63 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL12890974 28Page: Packet Page 56 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210705 9/25/2014 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO heat shrink tubing 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 84.45 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.61 Total :632.96 210706 9/25/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 198225 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES BAR AND BAR WRENCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.83 Total :55.68 210707 9/25/2014 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA33-633527 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE Mechanical Ball Bearings 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 700.61 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 37.67 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 70.14 Total :808.42 210708 9/25/2014 074720 MUELLER, SUSAN 19151 A NEW YOU 19151 A NEW YOU INSTRUCTOR FEE 19151 A NEW YOU INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 285.00 Total :285.00 210709 9/25/2014 063034 NCL 344464 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY 40g vial Nitr. Inhib. 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 83.40 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 9.22 Total :92.62 210710 9/25/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3381641 LEOFF 1 Medical premiums 29Page: Packet Page 57 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210710 9/25/2014 (Continued)074306 NEBCO/NPRIT LEOFF 1 Medical premiums 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,101.67 LEOFF 1 medical premiums 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,283.53 Total :10,385.20 210711 9/25/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0528993-IN Filter Inventory Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 5.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 0.56 Filter Inventory0530144-IN Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 25.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.38 Total :33.84 210712 9/25/2014 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 55105 WWTP - BISULFITE Sodium Bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 928.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 88.18 Total :1,016.38 210713 9/25/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1018009 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1018446 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1018447 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET2-1019610 30Page: Packet Page 58 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210713 9/25/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 609.05 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1019612 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1021026 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1021392 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :1,302.95 210714 9/25/2014 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2533032-00 Fleet Shop Air Compressor Repair Fleet Shop Air Compressor Repair 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 378.68 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 35.97 Total :414.65 210715 9/25/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 505 Planning Board Minutetaker 9/10/14 Planning Board Minutetaker 9/10/14 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 231.00 Total :231.00 210716 9/25/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 460728 OFFICE SUPPLIES Rebate incentive 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -208.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -19.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES463729 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 223.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 21.23 31Page: Packet Page 59 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210716 9/25/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC OFFICE SUPPLIES510286 POPPERMINT GREEN PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.43 WOTS SUPPLIES611559 FOLDERS (TEAL AND WHITE), LABELS, TEAL 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 301.14 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 28.60 Total :351.64 210717 9/25/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 11579 YOST POOL SUPPLIES SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 230.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.85 PARKS MAINT YOST SUPPLIES11681 YOST POOL GRATES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 430.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.85 Total :722.70 210718 9/25/2014 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00072316 Unit 106 - Supplies Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.22 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.16 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.54 Unit 66 - Repairs00072807 Unit 66 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 3,337.18 9.5% Sales Tax 32Page: Packet Page 60 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210718 9/25/2014 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 317.04 Total :3,718.14 210719 9/25/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 86007 CITY PARK PLAY TOY PROJECT CITY PARK PLAY TOY PROJECT: ROCK 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 433.32 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.17 Total :474.49 210720 9/25/2014 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 2415106 Unit 251 - Repairs Unit 251 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,211.91 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 115.13 Total :1,327.04 210721 9/25/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-81961 WWTP - PLC & SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE phase 02, task 01 - plc-101. phase 03, 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 54,736.31 Total :54,736.31 210722 9/25/2014 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.4745-3 Grandstand - Paint Supplies Grandstand - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.99 Total :45.97 210723 9/25/2014 008475 PETTY CASH 7/2-9/22/14 CITY WIDE- PRESSURE VALVE CARD CITY WIDE- PRESSURE VALVE CARD 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.63 YOST POOL - HVAC SHUTDOWN RELAY - FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.00 STREET - CDL PHYSICAL REIMBURSE - B 33Page: Packet Page 61 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210723 9/25/2014 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 99.00 STREET - SUPPLIES 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6.56 SEWER - SUPPLIES 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 29.58 FLEET - SMALL TOOL 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 17.36 FLEET - FUEL FOR SWAT BUS 511.000.77.548.68.32.00 225.00 Total :409.13 210724 9/25/2014 062296 PETTY CASH 092314 WWTP - PETTY CASH DISTRIBUTION Work & More Safety Boots, Brian Funk 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 68.49 Costco - Breakroom supplies, Jeanne 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 45.36 Parking SnoCo garage Everett, Pamela 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 9.00 Claim for Expenses, Les Krestel 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 81.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 6.62 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 4.52 Total :215.71 210725 9/25/2014 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-sp14 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 8/30 to 09/30 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26 Total :786.86 210726 9/25/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F044498 FS 16 - Dimmers FS 16 - Dimmers 34Page: Packet Page 62 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210726 9/25/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.50 Fac Maint - Conduits and Beam Clamps 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 55.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.72 Fac Maint - BrushF067168 Fac Maint - Brush 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.68 PARKS MAINT YOST POOL SUMP PUMPF071564 SUMP PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 110.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.45 WWTP - SMALL EQUIPMENT, TOOLSF116740 Roto-hammer 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 388.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 36.86 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF118072 6 amp power supplies X3 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 184.03 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 17.48 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF141363 CL3R audio control 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 108.82 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 10.34 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF148247 Electric Supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 60.99 9.5% Sales Tax 35Page: Packet Page 63 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210726 9/25/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 5.79 Total :1,052.65 210727 9/25/2014 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS Port-11060 DESTINATION EDMONDS - FULL PAGE AD Full page ad in Destination Edmonds 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 125.00 Total :125.00 210728 9/25/2014 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 214878 INV#214878 - EDMONDS PD TSR PERFORMANCE POWER MAG 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 185.85 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 18.60 Total :214.40 210729 9/25/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTER ALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 247.86 ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY2422756 ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 213.21 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC730531 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 26.79 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.79 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.11 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 30.81 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 13.40 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 36Page: Packet Page 64 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210729 9/25/2014 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 12.06 Total :595.03 210730 9/25/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5032499851 Additional Images MP171SPF pringer Additional Images MP171SPF pringer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 8.29 Total :8.29 210731 9/25/2014 066526 ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY 740670062 WWTP - TRAINING STAR 12 RENEWAL Star 12 renewal for: ~ 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 1,992.00 Total :1,992.00 210732 9/25/2014 074579 SECURITY CONCEPTS 10256 INV#10256 - EDMONDS PD 1 YR RENEWAL SIM 10/12/14-10/11/15 104.000.41.521.21.35.00 399.90 INV#10257 - EDMONDS PD10257 1 YR RENEWAL SIM 10/12/14-10/11/15 104.000.41.521.21.35.00 399.90 Total :799.80 210733 9/25/2014 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 23663 14108-SUPPORT 14108-Support June 2014 work completed 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,622.50 14108-Support July 2014 work completed23998 14108-Support July 2014 work completed 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,230.00 Total :2,852.50 210734 9/25/2014 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000366748 Q2-14 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES Quarterly Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.39.567.00.51.00 2,111.97 Total :2,111.97 210735 9/25/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 1 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 37Page: Packet Page 65 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210735 9/25/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 390.73 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 113.07 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 250.47 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 10002006-7801-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 P&R 18500 82ND AVE W2007-1403-8 P&R 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 82.01 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 31.27 P&R 8030 18TH ST SW2011-9708-4 P&R 8030 18TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 163.43 P&R 100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5 P&R 100 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 441.28 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,759.12 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 67.73 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6 38Page: Packet Page 66 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210735 9/25/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 71.59 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 272.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 272.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 272.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 272.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 272.05 P&R 1341 9TH AVE N2022-5062-7 P&R 1341 9TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,203.96 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 16.49 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,531.57 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 25,311.08 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 88.93 Total :38,044.59 39Page: Packet Page 67 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210736 9/25/2014 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 38919 FS 17 - Door - Roller and Spring FS 17 - Door - Roller and Spring 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,413.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 229.24 Total :2,642.24 210737 9/25/2014 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO oct 2014 stand OCT 2014 STAND INS oct 2014 stand Ins Premiums 811.000.231.550 11,909.47 Total :11,909.47 210738 9/25/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11410170 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 29.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.79 Total :32.11 210739 9/25/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50833915 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 8/31/14 E3FC.Services thru 8/31/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 33,768.89 Total :33,768.89 210740 9/25/2014 074942 THE MURAL WORKS INC 1427 INV#1427 - EDMONDS PD DESIGN & PAINT- MISSION/VALUES 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 237.50 DESIGN & PAINT- MISSION/VALUES 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 237.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 22.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 22.49 Total :520.00 210741 9/25/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 389128 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 40Page: Packet Page 68 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210741 9/25/2014 (Continued)027269 THE PART WORKS INC 4.5 GALLON CLOSET KITS, TAPERED HANDLE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 109.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.44 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES389728 TERMPING VALVE, TEE BRASS, WATER HEATER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 259.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.62 Total :403.91 210742 9/25/2014 068105 THORSON BARNETT & MCDONALD PC 68849 INV 68849 - ACCT 42097 EDMONDS MEBT POLICE EMPLOYEE MEBT CORRECTION 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 62.00 Total :62.00 210743 9/25/2014 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1246858 Fac Maint - City Wide Filters Fac Maint - City Wide Filters 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,144.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 108.76 Total :1,253.56 210744 9/25/2014 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 20987 PS - Utility Lock PS - Utility Lock 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.28 Total :26.28 210745 9/25/2014 073310 UNISAFE INC 693064 WWTP - SAFETY, NITRILE EXAM GLOVES Nitrile Exam Gloves, XL 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 899.00 Total :899.00 41Page: Packet Page 69 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210746 9/25/2014 062693 US BANK 0378 Advertising for Court Clerk opening Advertising for Court Clerk opening 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 25.00 Ergonomic Training 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 425.00 Advertising for Mechanic opening 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00 POSTAGE FEE FOR PASSPORTS3249 POSTAGE FEE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 70.70 ONLINE TRAINING FOR COURT AMBER 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 595.00 POSTAGE FEE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 50.50 Safeway - Refreshments for Volunteer3389 Safeway - Refreshments for Volunteer 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 87.57 QFC - Refreshments for Volunteer 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 15.62 Celtic Cowboy BBQ -Refreshments for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 157.57 Buyfirealarmparts - Library - Modules3405 Buyfirealarmparts - Library - Modules 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 116.95 Guardian Security for Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Verizon Wireless- PW Watch Phone Cords3546 Verizon Wireless- PW Watch Phone Cords 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.62 Verizon Wireless- PW Watch Phone Cords 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 24.62 Verizon Wireless- PW Watch Phone Cords 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 24.62 Verizon Wireless- PW Watch Phone Cords 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 24.63 42Page: Packet Page 70 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210746 9/25/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Home Depot - Recycle - Cover 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 10.92 Thegetgoinc - Traffic - Quick Clip Set 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 236.80 Amazon - Storm - Camera and Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.35.00 83.75 Amazon - Storm - Camera Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.35.00 5.00 Green River - Water - Backflow Class - 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 360.00 Green River- Water - Backflow Class - 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 360.00 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD5593 Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 6.00 Recording of Utility Lien Releases 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 180.00 Recording of Utility Lien Releases 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 180.00 WAPRO Membership renewal - S Passey 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 25.00 WAPRO Fall Training 10/16/2014 S Passey 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 140.00 PARKS DIR CREDIT CARD6254 HARBOR INN, HOTEL FOR CONFERENCE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 224.98 CAMPUS PARKING OLYMPIA 001.000.64.571.22.43.00 7.50 WA DOL - Lic SVC Fee7299 WA DOL - Lic SVC Fee 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 2.00 WA DOL - EQ95PO - Lic Fees 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 47.75 WA DOR BUS License Renewal 43Page: Packet Page 71 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210746 9/25/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 491.00 Edmonds Hardware - Unit 21 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.73 Fisheries Supply - Unit M16 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 148.49 Allied Elect - EQ95PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 128.53 Fisheries Supply - Unit M16 - Bushings 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.85 Fisheries Supply - Unit M16 - BRZ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 257.40 SVC FEES 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.19 Burt Process Equip - Unit M16 - Valve 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 181.16 Fisheries Supply - Unit M16 - Return7299 Fisheries Supply - Unit M16 - Return 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -110.89 GFOA WEBINAR NEW PENSION ACCOUNTING - D8842 GFOA webinar - What employers need to 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 85.00 Total :4,846.56 210747 9/25/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9731960958 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 74.07 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 170.33 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.05 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.83 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 59.08 44Page: Packet Page 72 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210747 9/25/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 315.71 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.63 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 91.69 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 28.79 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 46.02 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 46.02 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 103.69 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 99.43 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 52.56 Total :1,411.90 210748 9/25/2014 045912 WASPC 2014-00569 INV 2014-00569 LAWLESS ASSOCIATE DUES 20 ASSOCIATE DUES - LAWLESS 2014-15 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 210749 9/25/2014 070180 WATAI ROTH 2015 WATAI DUES - ROTH, EDMONDS PD 2015 DUES - KARL ROTH 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 60.00 Total :60.00 210750 9/25/2014 026510 WCIA 101144 STORAGE TANK LIABILITY INSURANCE Storage Tank Liability Insurance WWTP 2 423.000.76.535.80.46.00 793.00 Total :793.00 45Page: Packet Page 73 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 12:23:02PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210751 9/25/2014 047960 WEAN, GREG 9/11/2014 LEOFF 1 medical reiumbursement LEOFF 1 medical reiumbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 656.39 Total :656.39 210752 9/25/2014 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 761854 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES BLADE, BOLD BLADE, CAP ASM, CASTOR WHEEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 253.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.11 Total :277.86 210753 9/25/2014 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1033 SEPT-14 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,657.80 Total :13,657.80 Bank total :616,662.10124 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 616,662.10Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report124 46Page: Packet Page 74 of 787 09/25/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 1:26:37PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210754 9/25/2014 074993 EILERT, JERRI Ref000268012 UB Refund Cst #00189836 UB Refund Cst #00189836 411.000.233.000 165.40 Total :165.40 Bank total :165.401 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 165.40Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report1 1Page: Packet Page 75 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210755 10/2/2014 072627 911 ETC INC 29498 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 210756 10/2/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41290350 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 9/19/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00 Total :1,740.00 210757 10/2/2014 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND OCT 2014 EDMONDS PD - OCTOBER 2014 ANIMAL BOARDING OCTOBER 2014 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,127.08 Total :2,127.08 210758 10/2/2014 063819 ADKINS, LESLIE WOTS ADKINS WOTS ADKINS WOTS ADKINS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 71.00 Total :71.00 210759 10/2/2014 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2430125 PS - Bi-Monthly Maint Contract PS - Bi-Monthly Maint Contract 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.41 Total :108.41 210760 10/2/2014 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 4337 Advertising for Temp. PT Assoc. Planner Advertising for Temp. PT Assoc. Planner 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00 Total :50.00 210761 10/2/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987637335 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 88.48 1Page: Packet Page 76 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :88.4821076110/2/2014 069751 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 210762 10/2/2014 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 93233-0010 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY Cooling system rental 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 295.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 28.03 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY93233-0011 Cooling system rental 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 160.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 15.20 Total :498.23 210763 10/2/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 76499 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.18 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.18 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.29 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.89 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 135.89 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.53 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.53 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.64 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS76635 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.06 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.06 2Page: Packet Page 77 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210763 10/2/2014 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.05 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 124.82 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 124.81 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.14 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.14 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.24 Total :754.45 210764 10/2/2014 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 1006 INV 1006 EDMONDS PD PRE-EMPLOY POLYGRAPH - 9/22/14 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 225.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 7.00 Total :232.00 210765 10/2/2014 070634 BAUGHER, JANEE WOTS BAUGHER WOTS BAUGHER WOTS BAUGHER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 WOTS CONTEST BAUGHERWOTS CONTEST BAUGHER WOTS CONTEST BAUGHER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00 Total :267.00 210766 10/2/2014 074952 BENDER, JEFF WOTS BENDER JEFF WOTS BENDER JEFF WOTS BENDER JEFF 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 182.00 Total :182.00 210767 10/2/2014 073407 BENDER, SHEILA WOTS BENDER SHEILA WOTS BENDER SHEILA 3Page: Packet Page 78 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210767 10/2/2014 (Continued)073407 BENDER, SHEILA WOTS BENDER SHEILA 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 172.00 Total :172.00 210768 10/2/2014 070641 BHARTI KIRCHNER WOTS KIRCHNER WOTS KIRCHNER WOTS KIRCHNER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 71.00 Total :71.00 210769 10/2/2014 074957 BIG FICTION MAGAZINE WOTS JACOBS WOTS JACOBS WOTS JACOBS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 168.00 Total :168.00 210770 10/2/2014 074953 BINDER, PAMELA WOTS BINDER ROMANCE WOTS BINDER ROMANCE PANEL WOTS BINDER ROMANCE PANEL 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 WOTS BINDER SIX STEP TO CREATING MEMORABWOTS BINDER SIX STEP WOTS BINDER SIX STEP TO CREATING 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :342.00 210771 10/2/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0788412-IN Fleet Auto Propane 573.5 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 573.5 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,084.96 Fleet Auto Propane 530 Gal0789502-IN Fleet Auto Propane 530 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,003.31 Total :2,088.27 210772 10/2/2014 074849 BOMAR, RICK 92414 COMPUTER TRAINING FOR COURT COMPUTER TRAINING FOR COURT 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 196.30 Total :196.30 210773 10/2/2014 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC Ref000268992 10/1/14 BID refund - billed and paid in 4Page: Packet Page 79 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210773 10/2/2014 (Continued)075025 BRANDING IRON LLC 10/1/14 BID refund - billed and paid in 001.000.257.310 60.00 7/1/14 BID refund - billed & paid inRef000268993 7/1/14 BID refund - billed & paid in 001.000.257.310 60.00 Total :120.00 210774 10/2/2014 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 718303 Unit 22 - Seat Rebuild and Recover Unit 22 - Seat Rebuild and Recover 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 500.00 8.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 43.00 Total :543.00 210775 10/2/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14167239 Planning printer/copier lease Planning printer/copier lease 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 P&R IRC1030IF COPIER CHARGES14167241 P&R IRC1030IF COPIER CHARGES 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 FLEET COPIER14172195 Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 PW ADMIN COPIER14172196 PW Office Copier 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier 5Page: Packet Page 80 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210775 10/2/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 PW Office Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 WATER SEWER COPIER14172197 Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 PARKS MAINT IRC1030IF COPIER CHARGE14172198 PARKS MAINT IRC1030IF COPIER CHARGE 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 36.16 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES14188347 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 6Page: Packet Page 81 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210775 10/2/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 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 Total :817.86 210776 10/2/2014 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 33 COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR SEPTEMBER 2014 Communications advisor, Sept 2014. 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 210777 10/2/2014 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 415311 Sewer LS 1 - Pump 1 Repairs and shipping Sewer LS 1 - Pump 1 Repairs and shipping 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 3,228.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 306.72 Total :3,535.35 210778 10/2/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 211731 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES MILD STEEL WIRE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 35.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.39 Total :39.13 210779 10/2/2014 074843 CHANCE PAPE, ROBYN KAE WOTS CHANCE WOTS CHANCE WOTS CHANCE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 90.00 Total :90.00 210780 10/2/2014 075020 CHARGEPOINT INC 17706 City Charging Stations Annual Network City Charging Stations Annual Network 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 1,530.00 7Page: Packet Page 82 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,530.0021078010/2/2014 075020 075020 CHARGEPOINT INC 210781 10/2/2014 074319 CLASSICAL KING FM 98.1 IN-114073521 PROMOTIONAL AD ON KING FM 6/30-7/03/14 Promotional ads on King FM 6/30-7/03/14 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 345.00 Total :345.00 210782 10/2/2014 074883 CLYBORNE, CADENCE BID 090814 BID POSTAGE FOR MAILING Reimbursement for postage for BID 627.000.61.558.70.31.00 49.00 Total :49.00 210783 10/2/2014 074448 COBURN, DOUG 9/25 VOLLEYBALL 9/25 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 9/25 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 35.00 Total :35.00 210784 10/2/2014 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 30316 Sewer - Wet-Wells, and Conversion Kits Sewer - Wet-Wells, and Conversion Kits 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3,430.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 325.85 Total :3,755.85 210785 10/2/2014 074955 CYBERSCRIBE INC WOTS WITCHEY EVERYTH WOTS WITCHEY EVERYTHING DEPENDS WOTS WITCHEY EVERYTHING DEPENDS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 168.00 WOTS WITCHEY WRITE A STORY NOWWOTS WITCHEY WRITE A WOTS WITCHEY WRITE A STORY NOW 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 317.00 Total :485.00 210786 10/2/2014 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 346587 TO 14-01.PRESTIGE CARE - STORM DETENTION TO 14-01.Prestige Care - Storm 001.000.245.963 918.80 TO 14-01.PRESTIGE CARE - STORM DETENTION348636 TO 14-01.Prestige Care - Storm 8Page: Packet Page 83 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210786 10/2/2014 (Continued)073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 001.000.245.963 459.03 Total :1,377.83 210787 10/2/2014 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 9/4/14 - 10/1/14 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.237.190 129.00 Total :129.00 210788 10/2/2014 006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 091914 Fleet - Propane Cars - Road Tax Fleet - Propane Cars - Road Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 2,184.45 Total :2,184.45 210789 10/2/2014 070864 DEX MEDIA 440011971802 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 09/02/14 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 C/A 440001307733440011971810 09/2014 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total :69.90 210790 10/2/2014 072885 DICK'S TOWING INC 143745 Unit 304 - Towing from Monroe Unit 304 - Towing from Monroe 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 575.00 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 52.90 Total :627.90 210791 10/2/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3481-2 MINUTE TAKING Minutes taking 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 206.40 MINUTE TAKING14-3484 Council Minutes 9/23 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 379.50 Total :585.90 9Page: Packet Page 84 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210792 10/2/2014 075028 DORAME, ELIZABETH 9/26 REFUND DAMAGE 9/26 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 9/26 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total :500.00 210793 10/2/2014 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 09302014 STATE LOBBYIST SEPTEMBER 2014 State lobbyist for September 2014 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,600.00 Total :2,600.00 210794 10/2/2014 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 14-2351.1 E4FA.TO 14-04.SERVICES THRU 9/14/14 E4FA.TO 14-04.Services thru 9/14/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,133.78 Total :2,133.78 210795 10/2/2014 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2781011 City Park Bldg - Supplies City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 85.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.13 Total :93.69 210796 10/2/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 961 CEMETERY AD IN PREFERRED BUSINESS DIRECT CEMETERY AD IN PREFERRED BUSINESS 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 545.00 CHAMBER SEPT LUNCH HITE981 CHAMBER SEPT LUNCH HITE 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 20.00 Total :565.00 210797 10/2/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 105106 COPIER CHARGES C5051 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 116.02 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 116.02 Copier charges for C5051 10Page: Packet Page 85 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210797 10/2/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 115.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 11.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 11.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 11.02 METER READING105109 9/30 to 10/30 meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 456.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 43.33 COPIER CHARGES C1030105132 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 12.99 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 12.99 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 12.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 1.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.24 Total :923.10 210798 10/2/2014 070118 ELECTRONIC DATA SOLUTIONS 15908 Water - Repairs to Handheld Geo plus Water - Repairs to Handheld Geo plus 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 537.75 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 51.09 Total :588.84 210799 10/2/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH587595 PB PUBLIC HEARING AD.CIP/CFP 11Page: Packet Page 86 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210799 10/2/2014 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD PB Public Hearing Ad.CIP/CFP 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 36.12 NEWSPAPER ADEDH589858 Westgate Public Hearing 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 60.20 Total :96.32 210800 10/2/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33532 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES SUMP PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 116.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.11 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU33554 GALV CHAIN, S HOOKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 122.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.67 Total :262.61 210801 10/2/2014 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 93014 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 Total :20,000.00 210802 10/2/2014 074954 FITZGERALD CARTER, ZOE WOTS CARTER WOTS CARTER WOTS CARTER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 392.00 Total :392.00 210803 10/2/2014 072138 FUELCARE 6837 Unit CS1 - Maint Svc Unit CS1 - Maint Svc 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,262.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 119.89 Total :1,381.89 12Page: Packet Page 87 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210804 10/2/2014 074572 GA PUBLICATIONS NW LLC 1797 FULL PAGE AD IN THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR T Full page ad in the Edmonds Center for 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 958.00 Total :958.00 210805 10/2/2014 069091 GALBRAITH, KATHRYN O.WOTS GALBRAITH WOTS GALBRAITH WOTS GALBRAITH 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 182.00 Total :182.00 210806 10/2/2014 075027 GARRETT-JONES, SHEREL 92414 COMPUTER TRAINING FOR COURT SHEREL COMPUTER TRAINING FOR COURT SHEREL 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 216.68 Total :216.68 210807 10/2/2014 074956 GIRL FIRDAY PRODUCTIONS WOTS EMERICK SOCIAL WOTS EMERICK SOCIAL MEDIA AND MARKETING WOTS EMERICK SOCIAL MEDIA AND MARKETING 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 WOTS EMERICK THE HAPPY AUTHORWOTS EMERICK THE HAP WOTS EMERICK THE HAPPY AUTHOR 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 Total :400.00 210808 10/2/2014 075026 GITT'S SPRING CO 012116 Unit 91 - U Bolts Unit 91 - U Bolts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.73 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.71 Total :19.76 210809 10/2/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9535446703 Public Works - Water fountain Public Works - Water fountain 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 77.68 Public Works - Water fountain 13Page: Packet Page 88 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210809 10/2/2014 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 77.68 Public Works - Water fountain 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 77.68 Public Works - Water fountain 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 77.68 Public Works - Water fountain 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 77.70 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 7.38 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 7.38 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.38 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.39 Sewer LS - Safety Switch9538423782 Sewer LS - Safety Switch 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 183.64 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.45 FS 20 - LED Lamps9544237028 FS 20 - LED Lamps 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 618.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.73 Total :1,303.45 210810 10/2/2014 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 150812/1 Water - Adapters, Joints, Supplies Water - Adapters, Joints, Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 852.52 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 80.99 Water - Mtr Adaptors, Curb Stops,151542/1 14Page: Packet Page 89 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210810 10/2/2014 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC Water - Mtr Adaptors, Curb Stops, 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,037.14 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 193.53 Water Inventory - #0404 W-SADLCI-16-010151763/1 Water Inventory - #0404 W-SADLCI-16-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 587.92 #0077 W-CLMPCI-20-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 617.65 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 114.53 Sewer - 8- RC 6" Concxpls Fernco152037/1 Sewer - 8- RC 6" Concxpls Fernco 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 556.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 52.84 Total :5,093.28 210811 10/2/2014 075021 HAUGE, MICHAEL WOTS HAUGE WOTS HAUGE WOTS HAUGE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,450.00 Total :1,450.00 210812 10/2/2014 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3739760 Water Inv - W-SETTERCK-01-012 #0435 Water Inv - W-SETTERCK-01-012 #0435 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,838.05 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 364.61 Total :4,202.66 210813 10/2/2014 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE-2014-9-23 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SEPT 2014 45% Communications/marketing consultant: 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 4,525.00 Total :4,525.00 15Page: Packet Page 90 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210814 10/2/2014 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 19259 UKELELE 19259 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19259 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 446.60 Total :446.60 210815 10/2/2014 074962 HODGSON MEEKER, CLARE WOTS MEEKER WOTS MEEKER WOTS MEEKER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210816 10/2/2014 069952 HUGHES, HOLLY WOTS HUGHES POETRY WOTS HUGHES POETRY CRITIQUE WOTS HUGHES POETRY CRITIQUE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 600.00 WOTS HUGHES POETRY AS PRACTICEWOTS HUGHES POETRY A WOTS HUGHES POETRY AS PRACTICE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 172.00 Total :772.00 210817 10/2/2014 070742 HURLEY, DAN WOTS HURLEY WOTS HURLEY WOTS HURLEY 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 210818 10/2/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25351 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECH INVESTIGATION-CITY SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECH INVESTIGATION-CITY 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 763.23 Total :763.23 210819 10/2/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2511178 OFFICE SUPPLIES Stapler for Linda 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 37.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 3.59 SUPPLIES2515255 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 110.82 Office supplies DSD2515979 16Page: Packet Page 91 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210819 10/2/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 8.26 OFFICE SUPPLIES2517091 Return of Stapler for Linda 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -37.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -3.59 AIR DUSTER CANS2518942 Air duster cans 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 22.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.14 POST IT NOTE PADS2518948 Post it note pads 1.5" x 2" 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 17.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.65 Total :162.80 210820 10/2/2014 069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC 3017016 Membership dues for ICC Membership dues for ICC 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 125.00 Total :125.00 210821 10/2/2014 075005 JOHNSON, ERIK BID 2 `WEBSITE PHOTOS 85% COMPLETION BID Website photos 85% completion 627.000.61.558.70.41.00 400.00 Total :400.00 210822 10/2/2014 067436 JOHNSON, WILLIAM WOTS JOHNSON CRITIQU WOTS JOHNSON CRITIQUES WOTS JOHNSON CRITIQUES 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 450.00 WOTS JOHNSON DEEP CHARACTERIZATIONWOTS JOHNSON DEEP WOTS JOHNSON DEEP CHARACTERIZATION 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 317.00 17Page: Packet Page 92 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :767.0021082210/2/2014 067436 067436 JOHNSON, WILLIAM 210823 10/2/2014 074596 JUSINO, ELIZABETH WOTS JUSINO WOTS JUSINO WOTS JUSINO 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 210824 10/2/2014 074959 KOHANEK, CLARK WOTS KOHANEK THRILLE WOTS KOHANEK THRILLER WORKSHOP WOTS KOHANEK THRILLER WORKSHOP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 WOTS KOHENAK EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWNSWOTS KOHENAK EMOTION WOTS KOHENAK EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWNS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 257.00 Total :399.00 210825 10/2/2014 070285 KPLU-FM 1140934467 PROMOTIONAL AD ON KPLU RADIO 9/1-9/5/14 Promotional advertising on KPLU radio 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 840.00 Total :840.00 210826 10/2/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 33798 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 8/30/14 E3FH.Services thru 8/30/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,355.00 Total :1,355.00 210827 10/2/2014 073401 LASKIN, DAVID WOTS LASKIN WOTS LASKIN WOTS LASKIN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210828 10/2/2014 075022 LEE, LINDA WOTS CONTEST LEE WOTS CONTEST LEE WOTS CONTEST LEE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00 Total :125.00 210829 10/2/2014 074960 LEEGANT, JOAN WOTS LEEGANT WOTS LEEGANT WOTS LEEGANT 18Page: Packet Page 93 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210829 10/2/2014 (Continued)074960 LEEGANT, JOAN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210830 10/2/2014 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500079321 Unit 106 - Change Tires Unit 106 - Change Tires 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 48.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 4.56 Uint 14 - 8 Tires Plus FET80500084704 Uint 14 - 8 Tires Plus FET 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 3,743.20 Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 355.60 Total :4,159.36 210831 10/2/2014 074872 LILLEY, JOHN HM CONCERT 8/28 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA CONCERT 8/28 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA CONCERT 8/28 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 210832 10/2/2014 074084 LOADMAN NW LLC 12500 Unit 14 - Repairs Unit 14 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 682.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 64.81 Total :747.06 210833 10/2/2014 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2012-211 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CON Strategic Action Plan Implementation 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,965.00 Total :2,965.00 210834 10/2/2014 073802 LUND, DEBORAH WOTS LUND WOTS LUND 19Page: Packet Page 94 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210834 10/2/2014 (Continued)073802 LUND, DEBORAH WOTS LUND 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210835 10/2/2014 074961 LYNCH, JAMES WOTS LYNCH WOTS LYNCH WOTS LYNCH 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210836 10/2/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1360 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 Total :88.32 210837 10/2/2014 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1AA.Pmt 4 E1AA.PMT 4 THRU 8/30/14 E1AA.Pmt 4 thru 8/30/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 470,749.99 Total :470,749.99 210838 10/2/2014 063773 MICROFLEX IN1497644 Shop Work Gloves Shop Work Gloves 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 108.05 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.26 Total :118.31 210839 10/2/2014 072223 MILLER, DOUG 9/24 GYM MONITOR 9/24 GYM MONITOR 9/24 GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 25.00 Total :25.00 210840 10/2/2014 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-1 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/14 E4GA.Services thru 8/31/14 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 6,300.00 Total :6,300.00 20Page: Packet Page 95 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210841 10/2/2014 075018 MURRAY, MARK CRA20140082 Refund - duplicate Critical Area Refund - duplicate Critical Area 001.000.257.620 155.00 Total :155.00 210842 10/2/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0380971-IN Sewer - Sanitzer Sewer - Sanitzer 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 57.84 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.79 Water - Supplies0385733-IN Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 203.50 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.34 Total :301.03 210843 10/2/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0531208-IN Unit 106 - 50' Oil Reel Unit 106 - 50' Oil Reel 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 465.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 44.20 Total :509.45 210844 10/2/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1023983 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET CREDI2-102594 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKETS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -172.80 HUMMINGBIRD PARK HONEY BUCKET CREDIT2-102598 HUMMINGBIRD PARK HONEY BUCKET CREDIT 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -139.31 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET2-1027056 21Page: Packet Page 96 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210844 10/2/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET2-1027449 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1030110 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 591.18 Total :926.48 210845 10/2/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 507 Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 148.50 Total :148.50 210846 10/2/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 83370 CITY PARK PLAY AREA CONCRETE DUMP COSTS CITY PARK PLAY AREA CONCRETE DUMP COSTS 125.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,358.19 Total :2,358.19 210847 10/2/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-81977 E1FD.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2014 E1FD.Services thru August 2014 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,103.64 Total :1,103.64 210848 10/2/2014 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.5040-8 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES DTNE BS ACRY LTX DCK, 4.5 PJ-GE 1/2 2 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 78.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.49 Total :86.30 210849 10/2/2014 068571 PERSUN, TERRY WOTS PERSUN WOTS PERSUN WOTS PERSUN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 172.00 22Page: Packet Page 97 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :172.0021084910/2/2014 068571 068571 PERSUN, TERRY 210850 10/2/2014 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC 17693 YOST PARK SUPPLIES YOST PICKLEBALL TOURNAMENT NET SYSTEM 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 581.74 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.26 Total :637.00 210851 10/2/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F128255 PS & Museum - Elevator Eqip Rm Supplies PS & Museum - Elevator Eqip Rm Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 67.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.37 Total :73.45 210852 10/2/2014 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 14-032S Q4-2014 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q4-14 Clean Air Assessment per RCW 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 5,796.25 Total :5,796.25 210853 10/2/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000148910 CEMETERY MARKER INSCRIPTION VOIT CEMETERY MARKER INSCRIPTION VOIT 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 180.00 CEMETERY MARKER STEELE00000148911 CEMETERY MARKER STEELE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 686.00 Total :866.00 210854 10/2/2014 074963 REEVES, JUDITH WOTS REEVES 20 WAYS WOTS REEVES 20 WAYS TO MAKE IT BETTER WOTS REEVES 20 WAYS TO MAKE IT BETTER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 392.00 WOTS REEVES INTO THE DEEPWOTS REEVES INTO THE WOTS REEVES INTO THE DEEP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :534.00 23Page: Packet Page 98 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210855 10/2/2014 074602 RICH, KENNETH WOTS RICH WOTS RICH WOTS RICH 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 210856 10/2/2014 074964 RICKS, INGRID WOTS RICKS WOTS RICKS WOTS RICKS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210857 10/2/2014 074119 RUSSELL, GERALDINE G WOTS RUSSELL WOTS RUSSELL WOTS RUSSELL 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00 Total :500.00 210858 10/2/2014 074984 SAWYER, ROBERT WOTS SAWYER WOTS SAWYER WOTS SAWYER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 4,000.00 Total :4,000.00 210859 10/2/2014 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 269 YOST POOL MAINT YOST INSTALL NEW MAIN DRAIN GRATES 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 282.57 Total :282.57 210860 10/2/2014 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 90985 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 9/13/14 E4FC.Services thru 9/13/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,538.74 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 9/13/1490986 E4FC.Services thru 9/13/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 47,208.27 Total :48,747.01 210861 10/2/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E1GA.Pmt 3 E1GA.PMT 3 THRU 7/25/14 E1GA.Pmt 3 thru 7/25/14 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 154,844.50 24Page: Packet Page 99 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :154,844.5021086110/2/2014 068132 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO 210862 10/2/2014 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0174859-IN Unit 379 - Lens Kit, Amber Module Unit 379 - Lens Kit, Amber Module 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,017.59 Unit EQ93PO - Lights0175223-IN Unit EQ93PO - Lights 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 260.00 Freight 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 9.15 Unit 447 POL - Alley Light0175732-IN Unit 447 POL - Alley Light 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 83.20 Unit 447 POL - Lens Kit, Replacement0175981-IN Unit 447 POL - Lens Kit, Replacement 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 325.65 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.44 Total :1,730.03 210863 10/2/2014 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0398881 CITY FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES CITY FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES-BLUE 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 31.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.97 Total :34.22 210864 10/2/2014 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/ 23511665 Fleet Shop - IGN Scope Lead Set Fleet Shop - IGN Scope Lead Set 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 110.99 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 20.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 12.49 Fleet Shop - Shop ToolsARV/ 23528388 Fleet Shop - Shop Tools 25Page: Packet Page 100 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210864 10/2/2014 (Continued)060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 213.97 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 20.33 Fleet Shop n - Precision Low Amp ProbeARV/ 23557803 Fleet Shop n - Precision Low Amp Probe 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 273.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 26.01 Total :677.98 210865 10/2/2014 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000366255 E4CA.E4CB.OVERLAY PROGRAM.SERVICES THRU E4CA.Overlay Program Services thru 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,200.77 E4CB.Chip Seal Construction thru 7/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 22,455.12 Total :25,655.89 210866 10/2/2014 037521 SNO CO TREASURER 00479000100302 2014 SECOND HALF SURFACE WATER TAX 2014 Surface Water Charges - 23009 88th 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 263.49 Total :263.49 210867 10/2/2014 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 09302014 SCC AUGUST MEETING August SCC meeting~ 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 70.00 SCC SEPTEMBER MEETING09302014-2 September SCC Meeting~ 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 70.00 Total :140.00 210868 10/2/2014 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 831466 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 8/29/14 E4JB.Services thru 8/29/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 29,496.98 E1FH.SERVICES THRU 8/29/14831467 E1FH.Services thru 8/29/14 26Page: Packet Page 101 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210868 10/2/2014 (Continued)074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 4,646.00 Total :34,142.98 210869 10/2/2014 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2783313 PARKS MAINT FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES: 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 150.00 8.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.20 Total :163.20 210870 10/2/2014 073403 STEVENSON, ROY WOTS STEVENSON WOTS STEVENSON WOTS STEVENSON 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210871 10/2/2014 075024 STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOC 113197 SCA EDMONDS SUMMER CREW/MARSH REHAB SCA EDMONDS SUMMER COMMUNITY CREW/MARSH 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 210872 10/2/2014 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1135 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES - SEPTEMBER 2014 Social media services for October 2014 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 400.00 Total :400.00 210873 10/2/2014 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 9/26 SOFTBALL ATTEND 9/26 SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 9/26 SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 355.00 Total :355.00 210874 10/2/2014 074965 THAYER, JAMES WOTS THAYER WOTS THAYER WOTS THAYER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 168.00 Total :168.00 210875 10/2/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 390045 Library - Sink Soap Bottles 27Page: Packet Page 102 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210875 10/2/2014 (Continued)027269 THE PART WORKS INC Library - Sink Soap Bottles 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.46 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.64 Total :53.42 210876 10/2/2014 073404 THE WILLIAMS LAW FIRM PLLC WOTS WILLIAMS WOTS WILLIAMS WOTS WILLIAMS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 142.00 Total :142.00 210877 10/2/2014 069357 THIES, MIKE Mike Thies WACE Fall Membership + $40 membership WACE Fall Membership + $40 membership 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 240.00 Travel Expenses, including lodging, 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 471.44 Total :711.44 210878 10/2/2014 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 20920 Unit 127 - Key Unit 127 - Key 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.33 Total :3.83 210879 10/2/2014 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC BID 045-118724 MODIFICATION TO EDEN PROGRAM FOR BUSINES Modification to EDEN computer program 627.000.61.558.70.31.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 210880 10/2/2014 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 421058 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 399.80 28Page: Packet Page 103 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210880 10/2/2014 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 55.96 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 43.30 Water - High Secruity Master Locks and431417 Water - High Secruity Master Locks and 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 283.44 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 26.93 Sewer - Sewer Flags (4)449922 Sewer - Sewer Flags (4) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 49.96 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.55 Total :884.88 210881 10/2/2014 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E1GA.Ret 3 E1GA.WA FED. 316-4001681 RETAINAGE 3 THR E1GA.WA Fed. 316-4001681 Retainage 3 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 7,408.83 Total :7,408.83 210882 10/2/2014 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB40916001 IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FOR FIBER OP IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber Optic 001.000.31.518.87.48.00 773.98 Total :773.98 210883 10/2/2014 074311 WASHINGTON TOURISM ALLIANCE 1299 WASHSINGTON TOURISM ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP Washington Tourism Alliance membership 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 500.00 Total :500.00 210884 10/2/2014 070180 WATAI HARBINSON 2015 2015 WATAI DUES - HARBINSON - EDMONDS PD 2015 MEMBERSHIP DUES - HARBINSON 29Page: Packet Page 104 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210884 10/2/2014 (Continued)070180 WATAI 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 60.00 Total :60.00 210885 10/2/2014 074958 WDBK CONNECTIONS WOTS KENOWER WOTS KENOWER WOTS KENOWER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 168.00 Total :168.00 210886 10/2/2014 047960 WEAN, GREG 9/24/14 LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 80.92 Total :80.92 210887 10/2/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6440 Utility Billing - 10,000 #10 Window Utility Billing - 10,000 #10 Window 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 258.62 Utility Billing - 10,000 #10 Window 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 258.62 Utility Billing - 10,000 #10 Window 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 258.64 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.57 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 24.57 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 24.57 Total :849.59 210888 10/2/2014 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 762067 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES SCREWS, NUTS, CASTER FORK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 129.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.27 Total :141.40 30Page: Packet Page 105 of 787 10/02/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:42:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210889 10/2/2014 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 22046 Unit EQ93PO - Tire Chains Unit EQ93PO - Tire Chains 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 373.12 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 35.45 Total :408.57 210890 10/2/2014 075029 YOUNG, DIANA 9/26 REFUND 9/26 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND UNUSED MO 9/26 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND UNUSED 001.000.239.200 522.50 Total :522.50 Bank total :873,848.64136 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 873,848.64Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report136 31Page: Packet Page 106 of 787 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB 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 Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 107 of 787 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA 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 Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 108 of 787 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 109 of 787 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 110 of 787 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 111 of 787 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 c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 112 of 787 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 113 of 787 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 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays 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 Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 114 of 787 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 115 of 787 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 10/2/2014 Packet Page 116 of 787 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 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC 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 Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 117 of 787 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB 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 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 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 10/2/2014 Packet Page 118 of 787 Packet Page 119 of 787 Packet Page 120 of 787 Packet Page 121 of 787 Packet Page 122 of 787 Packet Page 123 of 787 Packet Page 124 of 787 AM-7167 5. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Lara L. Dittoe (amount undetermined). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Lara L. Dittoe 1136 8th Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 (amount undetermined) Attachments Attachment 1- Dittoe Claim for Damages Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 09/29/2014 09:21 AM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2014 Packet Page 125 of 787 Packet Page 126 of 787 Packet Page 127 of 787 Packet Page 128 of 787 Packet Page 129 of 787 Packet Page 130 of 787 Packet Page 131 of 787 AM-7169 5. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager Department:Finance Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title 2014 August Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative Attachments 2014 August Monthly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/01/2014 11:58 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/01/2014 11:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 06:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 07:59 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 10/01/2014 08:53 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 132 of 787 CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT AUGUST 2014 Packet Page 133 of 787 1 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2014 Amended Budget 8/31/2013 Revenues 8/31/2014 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received 001 GENERAL FUND 39,027,697$ 21,933,962$ 25,327,825$ 13,699,872$ 65% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 594,946 175,185 298,142 296,804 50% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 903,858 482,029 483 903,375 0% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 527,115 64,532 13,125 513,990 2% 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - - 70 (70) 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 714 2 7,998 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 589,800 28,424 187,648 402,152 32% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,075 17,266 19,834 241 99% 111 STREET FUND 1,712,100 960,039 1,222,765 489,335 71% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,231,407 1,227,411 2,094,863 7,136,544 23% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 102,823 17,183 33,733 69,090 33% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 25 10 39 (14) 158% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,140 36,000 40,337 13,803 75% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,308 6,783 11,507 8,801 57% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,623 355 121 1,503 7% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 18,200 19,103 13,748 4,452 76% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,343 613,965 669,467 234,876 74% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 904,243 613,525 667,753 236,490 74% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,708 30,431 23,660 20,048 54% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 4,000 291,992 48,589 (44,589) 1215% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 160,136 81,042 116,525 43,611 73% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,552,517 297,361 215,327 1,337,190 14% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 186 261 410 (224) 220% 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 12,970 9,313 12,066 904 93% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,519 7,907 3,791 728 84% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 446,395 457,030 187,970 71% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 20,368 16,209 12,391 57% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,626 15 47 28,579 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,689 92,264 84,010 938,679 8% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 143,612 180,629 (180,629) 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 6,249,596 3,867,195 4,584,160 1,665,436 73% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,630,158 2,451,279 2,672,673 957,485 74% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 8,347,200 5,147,771 6,468,458 1,878,742 77% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 - 340,408 500,408 40% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,478,108 962,763 1,005,356 472,752 68% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,379 49,607 50,153 (4,774) 111% 627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 43,882 68,200 (68,200) 0% 79,681,197$ 40,139,945$ 46,958,371$ 32,722,826$ 59% CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Packet Page 134 of 787 2 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 41,200,664$ 20,865,746$ 24,534,725$ 16,665,939$ 60% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 503,361 213,242 199,326 304,035 40% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 300,000 555,907 - 300,000 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 800 - 8,000 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 720,200 19,607 74,288 645,912 10% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 81,033 35,406 31,212 49,821 39% 111 STREET FUND 1,658,810 916,769 1,037,401 621,409 63% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,634,666 741,493 2,675,175 6,959,491 28% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 149,349 41,611 36,008 113,341 24% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,000 52,135 21,035 32,965 39% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,786 13,972 - 26,786 0% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,600 2,881 1,490 2,110 41% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 5,188 5,546 13,454 29% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,582,712 92,218 88,341 1,494,371 6% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1,199,841 32,108 39,393 1,160,448 3% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 18,200 20,600 3,429 14,771 19% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND *4,000 142,934 17,469 (13,469) 437% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 175,435 84,701 96,055 79,380 55% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,270,517 33,738 181,776 2,088,741 8% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,500 369 4,816 (316) 107% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 446,395 457,030 187,970 71% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 - - 28,600 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,690 92,264 84,614 938,076 8% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476 4,348,956 3,899,213 6,246,263 38% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 1,860,669 1,975,718 5,257,495 27% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 7,647,078 6,901,159 7,845,240 47% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 24,760 340,408 500,409 40% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,093,279 526,672 624,162 469,117 57% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 89,615 60,515 38,360 51,255 43% 627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - - 25,868 (25,868) 0% 96,426,048$ 38,878,734$ 43,403,230$ 53,048,685$ 45% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY *A budget amendment will be completed for this carryforward expense for the SR99 International District Enhancement Project Packet Page 135 of 787 3 Page 1 of 3 Title 2014 Amended Budget 8/31/2013 Revenues 8/31/2014 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 1 9,857,161$ 5,661,008$ 5,276,969$ 4,580,192$ 54% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2 3,105,938 1,754,115 1,638,082 1,467,856 53% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 3 946,303 558,128 508,417 437,886 54% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4 5,525,609 3,451,034 3,769,832 1,755,777 68% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,793 6,924 7,760 1,033 88% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 590,174 374,002 396,331 193,843 67% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,490,394 1,102,559 1,156,363 334,031 78% GAS UTILITY TAX 819,286 530,649 528,960 290,326 65% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 297,972 200,585 202,496 95,476 68% WATER UTILITY TAX 920,882 594,874 653,808 267,074 71% SEWER UTILITY TAX 479,750 259,714 345,812 133,938 72% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 295,972 262,244 217,839 78,133 74% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 5 738,219 528,171 551,020 187,199 75% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 6 1,544,793 935,506 912,478 632,315 59% PULLTABS TAX 62,613 41,407 33,843 28,770 54% AMUSEMENT GAMES 746 128 37 709 5% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 232,528 164,041 174,867 57,661 75% 26,917,133 16,425,089 16,374,915 10,542,218 61% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,666 4,990 190 5,476 3% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 700 630 630 70 90% AMUSEMENTS 4,500 4,350 4,675 (175) 104% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 659,488 497,805 517,702 141,786 79% FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT - 17,856 29,088 (29,088) 0% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 115,219 64,900 69,611 45,608 60% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 14,299 8,556 13,232 1,067 93% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - 5,000 - - 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 233,162 176,782 184,576 48,586 79% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 107,360 102,758 101,181 6,179 94% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 38,500 16,980 29,325 9,175 76% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 53,963 36,850 37,450 16,513 69% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,000 9,773 - 9,000 0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 503,000 296,217 324,405 178,595 64% ANIMAL LICENSES 53,040 6,056 8,458 44,582 16% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 151,045 27,149 64,690 86,355 43% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 18,467 7,381 10,473 7,994 57% 1,967,409 1,284,033 1,395,686 571,723 71% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,176 3,969 794 2,382 25% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT - 34,000 - - 0% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - 583 - - 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 5,949 3,615 3,885 48% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 2,821 3,560 (560) 119% DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - - 1,834 (1,834) 0% NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT 22,000 - 7,000 15,000 32% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 600 - - 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,033 - - 187,033 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,916 7,067 7,646 1,270 86% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,600 9,402 9,332 3,268 74% CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 34,300 26,360 28,360 5,940 83% DUI - CITIES 7,900 5,364 5,414 2,486 69% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 64,675 - 55,499 9,176 86% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 360,879 178,874 177,640 183,239 49% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 39,513 - 41,513 (2,000) 105% 751,492 274,990 342,207 409,285 46% CITY OF EDMONDS 2 EMS Property Tax is down $116,033 from 2013 3 Voted Property Tax is down $49,711 from 2013 6 Telephone Utility Tax is down $23,028 from 2013 4 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax is up $318,798 from 2013 1 Real Personal/Property Tax is down $384,039 from 2013 5 T.V. Cable Utility Tax is up $22,849 from 2013 REVENUES - GENERAL FUND Packet Page 136 of 787 4 Page 2 of 3 Title 2014 Amended Budget 8/31/2013 Revenues 8/31/2014 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,200 1,001 1,128 73 94% COURT RECORD SERVICES 50 - - 50 0% D/M COURT REC SER 50 47 13 37 27% SHARED COURT COSTS 3,700 - - 3,700 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 173 443 (243) 221% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 73 132 20 53 28% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0% PHOTOCOPIES 4,618 1,575 1,423 3,195 31% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 3,254 2,609 1,391 65% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 7 267,630 135,642 230,428 37,202 86% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,036 - - 1,036 0% SNO-ISLE 58,667 58,636 42,991 15,676 73% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 8,525 13,650 (2,650) 124% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 27,797 29,775 (3,775) 115% OCDETF OVERTIME - 3,614 9,060 (9,060) 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 2,146 3,011 9,289 24% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 21,295 30,750 5,250 85% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - 709 - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - 3,657 (2,157) 244% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 275 170 490 (215) 178% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 700 474 153 547 22% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 28,503 40,768 42,733 (14,230) 150% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 64,000 47,576 45,424 18,576 71% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 590 - - 0% BOOKING FEES 6,300 4,282 4,521 1,779 72% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,716 3,940 12,321 (6,605) 216% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 24,575 11,439 10,693 13,882 44% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 800,000 611,992 654,361 145,639 82% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 438 - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,700 3,145 2,176 3,524 38% CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,000 1,214 791 1,209 40% FIBER SERVICES 8 37,349 18,920 6,840 30,509 18% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,454 4,800 4,800 2,654 64% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 218 758 849 (631) 390% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 4,455 2,595 4,021 39% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 95,950 52,405 37,538 58,412 39% PLAN CHECKING FEES 7 310,000 172,420 360,631 (50,631) 116% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,984 1,275 5,990 (3,006) 201% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,630 966 415 1,215 25% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,980 4,365 2,315 4,665 33% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 16,530 13,795 12,555 3,975 76% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 8,600 7,381 5,789 2,811 67% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 60,722 55,728 5,272 91% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 3,953 3,433 2,067 62% LOCKER FEES 350 391 247 103 71% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 30,020 29,249 2,751 91% PROGRAM FEES 757,000 582,707 649,614 107,386 86% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 99,493 91,022 28,978 76% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 32,500 30,365 34,266 (1,766) 105% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 825 485 810 15 98% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 9 1,902,614 1,138,479 1,335,267 567,347 70% 4,796,979 3,218,729 3,782,576 1,014,403 79% CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 9 Engineering has provided a larger amount of services to other departments from 2013 to 2014 7 Development Services has collected a larger amount of fees in 2014 versus 2013 8 Fiber Services are down $12,080 from 2013 Packet Page 137 of 787 5 Page 3 of 3 Title 2014 Amended Budget 8/31/2013 Revenues 8/31/2014 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,000 8,986 5,728 5,272 52% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 38,000 23,424 18,438 19,562 49% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 310,000 203,872 179,754 130,246 58% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)25,000 17,611 14,531 10,469 58% SPEEDING DOUBLE 330 297 - 330 0% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,085 298 16,501 (14,416) 791% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 2,300 1,237 614 1,686 27% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 52,000 34,638 37,048 14,952 71% PARK/INDDISZONE - 2,147 499 (499) 0% DWI PENALTIES 3,000 2,495 5,040 (2,040) 168% DUI - DP ACCT 3,700 1,707 1,694 2,006 46% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 - 438 262 63% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - 64 (64) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,000 24,812 23,160 14,840 61% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 468 1,297 (1,297) 0% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 61 27 73 27% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 - 809 4,986 (4,986) 0% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,900 1,299 902 998 47% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 265 701 (701) 0% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 75,130 57,732 62,268 48% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 35,000 19,581 21,098 13,902 60% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 50 55 156 (106) 312% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 4,000 4,280 4,760 (760) 119% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 3,600 1,510 250 3,350 7% 650,765 424,982 395,421 255,344 61% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 88,200 1,526 11,443 76,757 13% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,281 1,121 281 1,000 22% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 2,641 4,848 (848) 121% PARKING 12,804 6,658 7,823 4,981 61% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 10 153,200 113,081 94,300 58,900 62% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 4,817 3,980 4,880 (63) 101% LEASES LONG-TERM 159,335 111,943 113,332 46,003 71% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 5,500 4,819 7,921 (2,421) 144% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 8,906 8,543 (143) 102% PARKS DONATIONS 9,100 9,100 11,066 (1,966) 122% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,300 1,200 950 350 73% PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,200 1 110 1,090 9% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 2,542 2,639 1,361 66% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 1,249 - - 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT - 6,367 - - 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 477 65 984 (507) 206% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 45 (15) 162 (117) 361% OTHER MISC REVENUES 725,427 2,572 2,331 723,096 0% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 68 39 29 39 43% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 150 180 120 30 80% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 1,300 604 386 914 30% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 120 - - - FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES - 1,368 - - - US BANK REBATE - - 1,557 (1,557) 0% 1,180,604 281,300 273,706 906,898 23% TRANSFERS-IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT 2,763,315 - 2,763,314 1 100% TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 - 12,543 - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 - 12,297 - - 0% 2,763,315 24,840 2,763,314 1 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 39,027,697$ 21,933,962$ 25,327,825$ 13,699,872$ 65% CITY OF EDMONDS 10 Space/Facilities Rentals are down $18,781 from 2013 REVENUES - GENERAL FUND Packet Page 138 of 787 6 Page 1 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES 13,018,152$ 7,933,412$ 8,100,039$ 4,918,113$ 62% OVERTIME 425,123 272,119 279,217 145,906 66% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0% BENEFITS 4,669,407 2,737,810 3,031,344 1,638,063 65% UNIFORMS 65,210 31,929 36,766 28,444 56% SUPPLIES 370,948 198,276 283,540 87,408 76% SMALL EQUIPMENT 150,733 68,574 211,334 (60,601) 140% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,403,874 1,070,982 1,231,699 1,172,175 51% COMMUNICATIONS 203,230 109,219 98,383 104,847 48% TRAVEL 33,685 12,268 13,195 20,490 39% ADVERTISING 57,375 12,529 17,475 39,900 30% RENTAL/LEASE 933,815 554,955 623,918 309,897 67% INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 284,667 275,421 182,379 60% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 348,835 167,725 225,551 123,284 65% MISCELLANEOUS 354,066 195,611 187,075 166,991 53% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,316,935 5,836,339 5,896,213 2,420,722 71% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 6,452 3,224 3,616 2,836 56% INTERFUND TRANSFER 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 262,721 22,735 128,401 134,320 49% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100% OTHER DEBT - 478 479 (479) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - 16,481 (16,481) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0% INTERFUND RENTAL - 32,000 - - 0% 41,200,664$ 20,865,746$ 24,534,725$ 16,665,939$ 60% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS 312,774$ 137,883$ 142,758$ 170,016$ 46% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 183,337 69,029 56,294 127,044 31% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 6,081 - 7,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 250 250 275 (25) 110% 503,361$ 213,242$ 199,326$ 304,035$ 40% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS 300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0% 300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100 - - 100 0% ADVERTISING 100 - - 100 0% MISCELLANEOUS 7,700 800 - 7,700 0% 8,000$ 800$ -$ 8,000$ 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES -$ 919$ 914$ (914)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 12,925 11,721 8,279 59% REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 668,200 3,898 61,653 606,547 9% MISCELLANEOUS - 1,865 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 32,000 - - 32,000 0% 720,200$ 19,607$ 74,288$ 613,912$ 10% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 3,262$ 4,647$ (1,647)$ 155% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 5,048 - 5,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 2,258 1,933 300 87% REPAIR/MAINT 800 10 - 800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25% INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 19,828 19,632 30,368 39% 81,033$ 35,406$ 31,212$ 49,821$ 39% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 139 of 787 7 Page 2 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STREET FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES 481,344$ 301,565$ 359,289$ 122,055$ 75% OVERTIME 21,400 11,988 16,583 4,817 77% BENEFITS 239,311 133,416 171,422 67,889 72% UNIFORMS 6,000 3,696 3,932 2,068 66% SUPPLIES 240,000 104,942 108,088 131,912 45% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 - 6,504 19,496 25% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,700 4,217 5,601 8,099 41% COMMUNICATIONS 2,500 1,849 3,027 (527) 121% TRAVEL 1,000 210 110 890 11% ADVERTISING 350 - - 350 0% RENTAL/LEASE 180,104 106,728 122,976 57,128 68% INSURANCE 82,400 87,201 74,683 7,717 91% UTILITIES 275,783 146,059 148,562 127,221 54% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 12,160 13,494 31,506 30% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 490 60 7,940 1% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,000 654 1,806 194 90% INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,805 558 282 28,523 1% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,149 - - 3,149 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,964 1,037 982 982 50% 1,658,810$ 916,769$ 1,037,401$ 621,409$ 63% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,022,300$ 445,610$ 406,235$ 1,616,065$ 20% MISCELLANEOUS - 26,427 - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 387,043 41,498 41,301 345,742 11% LAND 373,000 - 161,399 211,601 43% CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 6,274,297 75,590 1,790,290 4,484,007 29% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100% INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,120 4,479 4,118 2 100% INTERFUND SERVICES 501,703 75,686 199,629 302,074 40% 9,634,666$ 741,493$ 2,675,175$ 6,959,491$ 28% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES 4,200$ 2,850$ 39$ 4,161$ 1% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - 130 870 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 130,950 23,458 29,507 101,443 23% TRAVEL 75 54 11 65 14% ADVERTISING 4,000 5,550 2,355 1,645 59% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 4,281 - 2,000 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,418 3,967 2,033 66% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 824 - - 824 0% 149,349$ 41,611$ 36,008$ 113,341$ 24% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,000$ 16,123$ 7,912$ 8,088$ 49% ADVERTISING 33,500 23,901 11,124 22,376 33% MISCELLANEOUS 500 110 - 500 0% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 4,000 12,000 2,000 2,000 50% 54,000$ 52,135$ 21,035$ 32,965$ 39% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES 1,700$ 874$ -$ 1,700$ 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 555 - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFERS - 12,543 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0% 26,786$ 13,972$ -$ 26,786$ 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS 3,600$ 2,881$ 1,490$ 2,110$ 41% 3,600$ 2,881$ 1,490$ 2,110$ 41% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 1,697$ -$ 10,500$ 0% ADVERTISING 4,500 605 1,975 2,525 44% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,887 3,571 429 89% 19,000$ 5,188$ 5,546$ 13,454$ 29% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 140 of 787 8 Page 3 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES 30,000$ 47,932$ 48,003$ (18,003)$ 160% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400,000 21,116 15,109 384,891 4% ADVERTISING - 148 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE - 3,399 11,492 (11,492) 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 152,712 19,622 13,737 138,975 9% INTERFUND TRANSFER 800,000 - - 800,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 200,000 - - 200,000 0% 1,582,712$ 92,218$ 88,341$ 1,494,371$ 6% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS 200,000$ -$ 2,500$ 197,500$ 1% INTERFUND TRANSFER 959,528 26,071 22,204 937,324 2% LAND 10,550 - 8,973 1,577 85% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 18,330 - - 18,330 0% INTEREST 11,433 6,037 5,717 5,716 50% 1,199,841$ 32,108$ 39,393$ 1,160,448$ 3% GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES 11,700$ 1,750$ 929$ 10,771$ 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 6,553 - 4,000 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,500 12,297 2,500 - 100% 18,200$ 20,600$ 3,429$ 14,771$ 19% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) * PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000$ 5,386 -$ 2,000$ 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 114,251 17,469 (17,469) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 2,000 23,297 - 2,000 0% 4,000$ 142,934$ 17,469$ (13,469)$ 437% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES 81,251$ 45,926$ 46,566$ 34,685$ 57% OVERTIME 3,500 1,773 3,027 473 86% BENEFITS 39,056 21,416 21,330 17,726 55% UNIFORMS 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES 7,000 464 1,538 5,462 22% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 7,956 12,785 7,215 64% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 200 800 20% COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 942 959 453 68% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING 3,200 982 1,107 2,093 35% RENTAL/LEASE 9,216 3,504 6,144 3,072 67% UTILITIES 3,800 - 417 3,383 11% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,538 1,983 2,017 50% 175,435$ 84,701$ 96,055$ 79,380$ 55% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES -$ -$ 427$ (427)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (188,483) 32,624 92,286 (280,769) 0% LAND 700,000 - - 700,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,759,000 - 89,064 1,669,936 5% INTERFUND SERVICES - 1,114 - - 0% 2,270,517$ 33,738$ 181,776$ 2,088,741$ 8% SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES 500$ 222$ 99$ 401$ 20% TRAVEL 3,000 - 3,256 (256) 109% MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 147 1,461 (461) 146% 4,500$ 369$ 4,816$ (316)$ 107% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 1,756$ -$ -$ 0% INSURANCE 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 50% INTERFUND TRANSFER - 439,640 - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 640,000 - 454,530 185,470 71% 645,000$ 446,395$ 457,030$ 187,970$ 71% *A budget amendment will be completed for this carryforward expense for the SR99 International District Enhancement Project CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 141 of 787 9 Page 4 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0% 28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0% 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 854,667$ -$ -$ 854,667$ 0% INTEREST 168,023 92,264 84,010 84,013 50% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - - 604 (604) 0% 1,022,690$ 92,264$ 84,614$ 938,076$ 8% 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 923,199$ -$ -$ 923,199$ 0% INTEREST 23,105 - 9,211 13,894 40% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 19,982 - - 19,982 0% 966,286$ -$ 9,211$ 957,075$ 1% WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES 677,172$ 479,571$ 489,671$ 187,501$ 72% OVERTIME 24,180 13,620 10,285 13,895 43% BENEFITS 326,137 200,590 223,454 102,683 69% UNIFORMS 6,800 3,859 2,886 3,914 42% SUPPLIES 151,838 62,825 77,103 74,736 51% FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 882,711 861,092 738,908 54% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 130,816 59,109 82,540 48,276 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,161 6,467 15,167 9,994 60% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575,468 196,458 135,307 440,161 24% COMMUNICATIONS 35,000 21,575 18,011 16,989 51% TRAVEL 2,600 - - 2,600 0% ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 104,820 61,126 72,200 32,620 69% INSURANCE 66,869 67,607 74,689 (7,820) 112% UTILITIES 40,000 21,745 20,789 19,211 52% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,600 1,941 10,355 7,245 59% MISCELLANEOUS 307,880 212,453 243,153 64,727 79% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 16,854 21,234 8,766 71% INTERFUND TAXES 920,881 594,874 653,808 267,073 71% INTERFUND TRANSFER 292,830 - 120,415 172,415 41% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 49,849 - - 49,849 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,614,973 966,597 270,338 3,344,635 7% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,115 - - 2,115 0% REVENUE BONDS 306,140 - - 306,140 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100% INTEREST 275,912 140,928 138,667 137,245 50% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 327 (327) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 514,096 291,984 311,883 202,213 61% INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - 48 - - 0% 10,145,476$ 4,348,956$ 3,899,213$ 6,246,263$ 38% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 142 of 787 10 Page 5 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES 594,775$ 339,995$ 317,471$ 277,304$ 53% OVERTIME 6,000 8,341 9,338 (3,338) 156% BENEFITS 258,745 140,301 146,696 112,049 57% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,998 4,438 2,062 68% SUPPLIES 58,333 22,792 22,644 35,689 39% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 164 876 3,124 22% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,548,909 400,541 363,779 1,185,130 23% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,152 2,250 950 70% TRAVEL 4,300 864 - 4,300 0% ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 213,612 144,568 139,015 74,597 65% INSURANCE 8,089 8,407 36,035 (27,946) 445% UTILITES 10,500 5,722 5,660 4,840 54% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 5,962 7,301 5,699 56% MISCELLANEOUS 112,100 62,460 64,273 47,827 57% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 75,000 21,677 98,576 (23,576) 131% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 295,973 208,330 217,839 78,134 74% INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,291 - 20,354 33,937 37% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,881,712 - - 2,881,712 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 105,461 - - 105,461 0% REVENUE BONDS 149,691 - - 149,691 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100% INTEREST 182,178 94,584 91,970 90,208 50% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 83 165 (165) 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 614,281 357,666 394,976 219,305 64% 7,233,213$ 1,860,669$ 1,975,718$ 5,257,495$ 27% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,650,330$ 1,019,492$ 1,084,470$ 565,860$ 66% OVERTIME 73,000 62,520 53,012 19,988 73% BENEFITS 760,694 426,178 497,811 262,883 65% UNIFORMS 11,400 7,639 6,403 4,997 56% SUPPLIES 399,333 172,620 144,085 255,248 36% FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 103,767 70,638 19,362 78% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE - - 3,600 (3,600) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 12,098 29,554 (3,554) 114% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,065,500 729,789 373,573 691,927 35% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 24,054 24,336 15,664 61% TRAVEL 7,400 - - 7,400 0% ADVERTISING 2,500 - - 2,500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 149,968 87,986 98,247 51,721 66% INSURANCE 155,006 156,092 128,145 26,861 83% UTILITIES 1,170,600 622,522 708,284 462,316 61% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 175,000 101,626 107,682 67,318 62% MISCELLANEOUS 217,935 131,800 136,374 81,561 63% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 86,331 90,780 318,109 22% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 479,750 313,628 345,812 133,938 72% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,168,346 25,763 384,394 783,952 33% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 449,500 - 6,504 442,996 1% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,837,535 2,958,322 1,963,842 2,873,693 41% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 120,529 - - 120,529 0% REVENUE BONDS 69,169 - - 69,169 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 143,620 143,620 60,001 71% INTEREST 149,971 69,705 64,958 85,013 43% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 111 (111) 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 864,423 391,484 434,922 429,501 50% 14,746,399$ 7,647,078$ 6,901,159$ 7,845,240$ 47% BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS 160,000$ -$ -$ 160,000$ 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 24,760 - - 0% INTEREST 680,816 - 340,408 340,409 50% 840,816 24,760 340,408 500,409 40% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 143 of 787 11 Page 6 of 6 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES 203,962$ 112,616$ 136,264$ 67,698$ 67% OVERTIME 1,000 886 1,211 (211) 121% BENEFITS 89,965 51,427 62,586 27,379 70% UNIFORMS 1,000 525 825 175 82% SUPPLIES 96,500 63,340 59,564 36,936 62% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - 483 517 48% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 361,700 142,839 123,258 238,442 34% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 19,878 11,458 (3,458) 143% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 1,392 602 398 60% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 866 1,298 1,702 43% RENTAL/LEASE 14,484 6,193 9,119 5,365 63% INSURANCE 32,701 34,153 37,376 (4,675) 114% UTILITIES 14,000 7,664 7,416 6,584 53% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 33,129 34,108 25,892 57% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 3,965 3,699 2,301 62% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 872 2,408 92 96% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 186,467 46,927 126,399 60,068 68% INTERFUND RENTAL 10,000 - 6,089 3,911 61% 1,093,279$ 526,672$ 624,162$ 469,117$ 57% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS 49,619$ 17,883$ 19,195$ 30,424$ 39% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 41,463 19,165 19,631 49% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,169 - 1,200 0% 89,615$ 60,515$ 38,360$ 51,255$ 43% BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (627) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ 24,638$ (24,638)$ 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - 1,229 (1,229) 0% -$ -$ 25,868$ (25,868)$ 0% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 96,426,048$ 38,878,734$ 43,403,230$ 52,508,277$ 45% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 144 of 787 12 Page 1 of 1 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL 238,644$ 178,450$ 145,411$ 93,233$ 61% OFFICE OF MAYOR 251,085 156,244 163,387 87,698 65% HUMAN RESOURCES 349,938 168,734 228,816 121,122 65% MUNICIPAL COURT 801,872 475,199 516,393 285,479 64% CITY CLERK 537,273 359,928 334,638 202,635 62% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,774,220 909,293 1,135,088 639,132 64% CITY ATTORNEY 557,900 324,528 330,595 227,306 59% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11 17,816,558 7,087,477 10,027,805 7,788,753 56% POLICE SERVICES 8,824,364 5,693,804 5,599,938 3,224,426 63% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.508,024 233,447 262,287 245,737 52% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,219,366 1,024,666 1,193,443 1,025,923 54% PARKS & RECREATION 3,826,916 2,266,919 2,368,651 1,458,265 62% PUBLIC WORKS 2,088,677 1,120,813 1,288,232 800,445 62% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,405,827 866,245 940,041 465,786 67% 41,200,664$ 20,865,746$ 24,534,725$ 16,665,939$ 60% Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476$ 4,348,956$ 3,899,213$ 6,246,263$ 38% STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 1,860,669 1,975,718 5,257,495 27% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 7,647,078 6,901,159 7,845,240 47% BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 24,760 340,408 500,409 40% 32,965,904$ 13,881,463$ 13,116,499$ 19,849,405$ 40% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF EDMONDS 11 Bond payment of $2.7 million was made in April of 2014 No Department is over budget and General Fund Expenses are tracking at 60% when 67% of the year is completed Packet Page 145 of 787 13 Page 1 of 4 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES 117,615$ 78,592$ 83,419$ 34,196$ 71% OVERTIME 2,000 344 124 1,876 6% BENEFITS 72,271 46,509 49,823 22,448 69% SUPPLIES 2,000 151 487 1,513 24% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 1,005 (1,005) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 39,505 521 9,479 5% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,821 2,060 940 69% TRAVEL 2,500 486 1,256 1,244 50% RENTAL/LEASE 490 308 346 144 71% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 55 - 1,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 10,681 6,370 20,898 23% 238,644$ 178,450$ 145,411$ 93,233$ 61% OFFICE OF MAYOR SALARIES 192,115$ 123,991$ 127,754$ 64,361$ 66% BENEFITS 46,170 28,119 29,906 16,264 65% SUPPLIES 2,000 997 238 1,762 12% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500 59 1,088 412 73% COMMUNICATION 1,400 595 485 915 35% TRAVEL 2,000 541 438 1,562 22% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,338 1,651 749 69% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 605 1,825 1,175 61% 251,085$ 156,244$ 163,387$ 87,698$ 65% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES 194,389$ 108,471$ 128,212$ 66,177$ 66% BENEFITS 59,339 32,561 43,674 15,665 74% SUPPLIES 2,300 2,597 2,656 (356) 115% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - 223 (123) 223% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,000 12,511 40,497 30,503 57% COMMUNICATIONS 700 306 574 126 82% TRAVEL 500 572 - 500 0% ADVERTISING 5,000 2,212 3,225 1,775 65% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,319 1,653 547 75% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 5,349 6,119 (119) 102% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 2,836 1,984 6,426 24% 349,938$ 168,734$ 228,816$ 121,122$ 65% MUNICIPAL COURT SALARIES 500,048$ 309,725$ 343,812$ 156,236$ 69% OVERTIME - - 2,053 (2,053) 0% BENEFITS 177,004 102,292 111,042 65,962 63% SUPPLIES 9,400 6,962 8,117 1,283 86% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,500 1,003 240 2,260 10% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69,000 44,889 38,818 30,182 56% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,469 1,800 800 69% TRAVEL 2,390 1,652 760 1,630 32% RENTAL/LEASE 1,070 633 961 109 90% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 610 409 2,753 (2,143) 451% MISCELLANEOUS 37,250 6,165 6,038 31,212 16% 801,872$ 475,199$ 516,393$ 285,479$ 64% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 146 of 787 14 Page 2 of 4 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES 307,596$ 206,871$ 195,041$ 112,555$ 63% OVERTIME - - 775 (775) 0% BENEFITS 101,833 63,330 69,722 32,111 68% SUPPLIES 10,237 5,413 3,700 6,537 36% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,107 32,555 14,472 9,635 60% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 27,922 25,088 24,912 50% TRAVEL 1,000 36 - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING 4,200 2,432 974 3,226 23% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 10,686 11,894 8,106 59% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,300 8,210 10,344 3,956 72% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,474 2,629 1,371 66% 537,273$ 359,928$ 334,638$ 202,635$ 62% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES 771,709$ 447,182$ 486,588$ 285,121$ 63% OVERTIME 6,667 6,046 4,928 1,739 74% BENEFITS 255,363 140,872 169,546 85,817 66% SUPPLIES 30,371 11,258 61,586 (31,215) 203% SMALL EQUIPMENT 73,654 55,469 137,842 (64,188) 187% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 129,356 93,788 6,475 122,881 5% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 34,096 25,151 33,809 43% TRAVEL 1,750 844 348 1,402 20% RENTAL/LEASE 8,904 5,699 5,370 3,534 60% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 179,986 77,692 112,513 67,473 63% MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 13,611 12,061 (1,561) 115% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 247,000 22,735 112,680 134,320 46% 1,774,220$ 909,293$ 1,135,088$ 639,132$ 64% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,900$ 324,528$ 330,545$ 227,356$ 59% MISC PROSECUTOR - - 50 (50) 0% 557,900$ 324,528$ 330,595$ 227,306$ 59% NON-DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES 278,171$ -$ -$ 278,171$ 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 16,680 11,858 13,142 47% SUPPLIES 3,000 - 1,429 1,571 48% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 287,347 146,928 203,502 83,845 71% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101% MISCELLANEOUS 55,708 40,065 57,960 (2,252) 104% INTERGOVT SERVICES 8,236,003 5,559,088 5,855,160 2,380,843 71% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 6,452 3,224 3,616 2,836 56% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - 16,481 (16,481) 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 479 (479) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0% 17,816,558$ 7,087,477$ 10,027,805$ 7,788,753$ 56% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 147 of 787 15 Page 3 of 4 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent POLICE SERVICES SALARIES 5,263,948$ 3,388,103$ 3,403,480$ 1,860,468$ 65% OVERTIME 402,456 258,954 252,764 149,692 63% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0% BENEFITS 1,962,070 1,192,991 1,317,077 644,993 67% UNIFORMS 56,910 28,327 30,354 26,556 53% SUPPLIES 87,500 44,204 55,011 32,489 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT 15,900 7,574 16,948 (1,048) 107% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,287 66,486 60,414 53,873 53% COMMUNICATIONS 25,592 14,421 15,532 10,060 61% TRAVEL 14,300 6,640 8,195 6,105 57% ADVERTISING 375 73 40 335 11% RENTAL/LEASE 608,688 356,976 404,267 204,421 66% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 5,475 4,562 11,553 28% MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 15,850 25,317 19,643 56% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 272,251 5,119 5,119 50% INTERFUND RENTAL - 32,000 - - 0% 8,824,364$ 5,693,804$ 5,599,938$ 3,224,426$ 63% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES 216,742$ 142,421$ 154,764$ 61,978$ 71% BENEFITS 68,668 42,328 38,340 30,328 56% SUPPLIES 1,500 402 622 878 41% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145,824 40,615 58,331 87,493 40% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 1,027 429 1,061 29% TRAVEL 2,000 17 6 1,994 0% ADVERTISING 39,500 2,880 6,322 33,178 16% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,559 1,653 347 83% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 29,000 2,199 1,820 27,180 6% 508,024$ 233,447$ 262,287$ 245,737$ 52% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES 1,273,306$ 703,611$ 743,018$ 530,288$ 58% OVERTIME 1,300 25 5,044 (3,744) 388% BENEFITS 465,402 243,711 268,370 197,032 58% UNIFORMS 100 - 120 (20) 120% SUPPLIES 13,100 6,924 10,295 2,805 79% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,650 293 6,907 1,743 80% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 383,256 29,635 112,754 270,502 29% COMMUNICATIONS 4,600 2,719 2,804 1,796 61% TRAVEL 1,600 45 798 802 50% ADVERTISING 4,000 2,900 3,743 257 94% RENTAL/LEASE 38,152 21,913 25,129 13,023 66% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 112 620 (120) 124% MISCELLANEOUS 25,400 12,777 13,842 11,558 54% 2,219,366$ 1,024,666$ 1,193,443$ 1,025,923$ 54% ENGINEERING SALARIES 1,203,904$ 645,445$ 719,214$ 484,690$ 60% OVERTIME 5,000 1,199 - 5,000 0% BENEFITS 423,053 235,895 283,531 139,522 67% UNIFORMS 360 - 109 251 30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 403 2,052 148 93% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52,950 840 28,966 23,985 55% COMMUNICATIONS 11,220 3,642 4,170 7,050 37% TRAVEL 600 10 86 514 14% ADVERTISING - 264 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 18,492 8,936 12,328 6,164 67% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 38 699 1,101 39% MISCELLANEOUS 15,000 6,396 9,640 5,360 64% 1,734,579$ 903,068$ 1,060,795$ 673,784$ 61% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 148 of 787 16 Page 4 of 4 Title 2014 Adopted Budget 8/31/2013 Expenditures 8/31/2014 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent PARKS & RECREATION SALARIES 1,823,252$ 1,201,242$ 1,129,256$ 693,997$ 62% OVERTIME 5,000 5,423 11,846 (6,846) 237% BENEFITS 668,116 394,354 408,826 259,290 61% UNIFORMS 5,340 2,599 3,860 1,480 72% SUPPLIES 114,940 73,600 83,774 31,166 73% SMALL EQUIPMENT 43,929 1,820 42,474 1,455 97% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,147 238,610 333,256 223,891 60% COMMUNICATIONS 28,818 11,620 10,464 18,354 36% TRAVEL 4,545 1,425 1,309 3,236 29% ADVERTISING 4,300 1,768 3,172 1,128 74% RENTAL/LEASE 170,019 108,855 117,942 52,077 69% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 109,130 90,492 84,508 52% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,524 31,733 36,022 16,502 69% MISCELLANEOUS 87,570 79,740 44,304 43,266 51% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 15,721 - 15,721 0 100% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 35,934 34,761 51% 3,826,916$ 2,266,919$ 2,368,651$ 1,458,265$ 62% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES 250,358$ 163,213$ 166,372$ 83,986$ 66% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 78,450 44,790 49,982 28,468 64% SUPPLIES 7,600 3,281 3,273 4,327 43% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 583 (583) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 35 36 164 18% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 1,022 511 839 38% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,740 2,899 4,085 3,655 53% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,506 1,490 1,310 53% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 999 1,106 2,794 28% 354,098$ 217,744$ 227,438$ 126,660$ 64% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 624,999$ 414,545$ 419,110$ 205,889$ 67% OVERTIME 2,500 128 1,683 817 67% BENEFITS 266,668 153,376 179,646 87,022 67% UNIFORMS 2,500 1,003 2,321 179 93% SUPPLIES 87,000 42,489 52,351 34,649 60% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 2,013 3,060 (60) 102% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - 2,026 (2,026) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 8,559 9,316 4,184 69% RENTAL/LEASE 50,060 30,235 33,040 17,020 66% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 174,031 183,440 96,560 66% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 73,500 38,652 51,919 21,581 71% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,214 2,129 (29) 101% 1,405,827$ 866,245$ 940,041$ 465,786$ 67% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 41,200,664$ 20,865,746$ 24,534,725$ 16,665,939$ 60% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 149 of 787 17 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 1,923,425$ 1,923,425$ 1,704,062$ -11.40% February 4,016,229 2,092,803 6,617,557 64.77% March 6,287,135 2,270,906 8,899,880 41.56% April 9,630,968 3,343,834 12,575,092 30.57% May 18,195,151 8,564,183 19,617,376 7.82% June 20,107,912 1,912,761 21,270,138 5.78% July 22,334,628 2,226,716 23,438,395 4.94% August 24,282,814 1,948,186 25,327,825 4.30% September 26,192,139 1,909,324 27,319,317 4.30% October 29,332,410 3,140,271 30,594,730 4.30% November 37,045,071 7,712,661 38,639,305 4.30% December 39,027,697 1,982,626 40,707,254 4.30% *The difference between budget and actual shown is due to proceeds from refunding the 2003 UTGO Bonds. Proceeds were $2.8 million. Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 74,651$ 74,651$ 92,868$ 24.40% February 120,737 46,087 149,163 23.54% March 181,397 60,660 204,533 12.75% April 256,711 75,314 261,931 2.03% May 323,837 67,125 326,172 0.72% June 398,387 74,550 410,270 2.98% July 483,191 84,805 559,760 15.85% August 578,011 94,819 666,423 15.30% September 666,060 88,049 767,939 15.30% October 768,001 101,941 885,473 15.30% November 837,495 69,494 965,597 15.30% December 902,243 64,748 1,040,249 15.30% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax 0 8000000 16000000 24000000 32000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Real Estate Excise Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 150 of 787 18 ($80,000)($40,000)$0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 $200,000 $240,000 $280,000 $320,000 Amusement & Recreation Clothing and Accessories Automotive Repair Health & Personal Care Accommodation Communications Wholesale Trade Business Services Retail Food Stores Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Contractors Others Retail Automotive/Gas Total ($72,727) ($8,677) ($193) $1,039 $2,713 $5,182 $13,459 $14,273 $27,822 $36,481 $43,091 $45,060 $47,315 $163,969 $318,807 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: August 2014 compared to August 2013 Retail Eating & Drinking 471,774 Contractors 500,384 Wholesale Trade 168,433 Communications 144,119 Misc Retail Trade 456,784 Accommodation 23,216 Business Services 260,499 Health & Personal Care 62,779 Automotive Repair 102,966 Amusement & Recreation 48,544 Retail Food Stores 178,668 Others 198,087 Retail Automotive/Gas 1,016,021 Clothing and Accessories 137,561 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: August 2014 Year-to-Date Total $3,769,832 Packet Page 151 of 787 19 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 428,831$ 428,831$ 444,169$ 3.58% February 963,323 534,493 998,510 3.65% March 1,363,952 400,629 1,477,603 8.33% April 1,763,418 399,466 1,870,619 6.08% May 2,251,403 487,985 2,371,435 5.33% June 2,687,897 436,495 2,812,288 4.63% July 3,127,170 439,272 3,276,565 4.78% August 3,623,461 496,291 3,769,832 4.04% September 4,086,398 462,937 4,251,469 4.04% October 4,563,331 476,933 4,747,668 4.04% November 5,078,747 515,416 5,283,904 4.04% December 5,525,609 446,862 5,748,817 4.04% Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 113,876$ 113,876$ 103,199$ -9.38% February 239,319 125,442 198,165 -17.20% March 342,980 103,661 298,299 -13.03% April 436,459 93,479 376,839 -13.66% May 512,262 75,803 435,966 -14.89% June 565,759 53,498 474,528 -16.13% July 607,696 41,937 504,520 -16.98% August 638,725 31,029 528,960 -17.19% September 666,716 27,990 552,141 -17.19% October 696,005 29,289 576,397 -17.19% November 746,459 50,453 618,180 -17.19% December 819,286 72,827 678,492 -17.19% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Sales and Use Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Gas Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 152 of 787 20 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 126,925$ 126,925$ 120,158$ -5.33% February 249,682 122,757 248,366 -0.53% March 386,065 136,384 359,490 -6.88% April 499,602 113,536 470,135 -5.90% May 645,057 145,456 581,203 -9.90% June 768,223 123,165 692,449 -9.86% July 895,235 127,013 803,786 -10.22% August 1,037,189 141,953 912,478 -12.02% September 1,143,101 105,912 1,005,656 -12.02% October 1,286,698 143,597 1,131,986 -12.02% November 1,381,314 94,616 1,215,226 -12.02% December 1,544,793 163,479 1,359,048 -12.02% Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 158,918$ 158,918$ 175,072$ 10.16% February 320,172 161,254 352,390 10.06% March 475,954 155,782 534,485 12.30% April 631,990 156,035 690,245 9.22% May 774,898 142,908 839,998 8.40% June 885,438 110,541 948,700 7.14% July 991,385 105,947 1,055,702 6.49% August 1,087,004 95,619 1,156,363 6.38% September 1,187,503 100,499 1,263,275 6.38% October 1,274,792 87,289 1,356,134 6.38% November 1,383,012 108,220 1,471,258 6.38% December 1,490,394 107,382 1,585,492 6.38% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Telephone Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Electric Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 153 of 787 21 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 429,754$ 429,754$ 489,005$ 13.79% February 729,586 299,832 828,145 13.51% March 1,147,622 418,036 1,294,140 12.77% April 1,435,683 288,061 1,607,107 11.94% May 1,858,183 422,500 2,073,689 11.60% June 2,169,885 311,702 2,434,321 12.19% July 2,657,881 487,996 3,003,419 13.00% August 3,086,188 428,307 3,496,156 13.28% September 3,680,575 594,387 4,169,501 13.28% October 4,108,457 427,882 4,654,223 13.28% November 4,610,786 502,330 5,223,282 13.28% December 4,924,500 313,714 5,578,669 13.28% Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 210,362$ 210,362$ 216,037$ 10.16% February 663,443 453,081 680,744 10.06% March 874,097 210,654 896,910 12.30% April 1,061,161 187,064 1,089,565 9.22% May 1,272,188 211,026 1,305,756 8.40% June 1,459,452 187,265 1,498,017 7.14% July 1,671,872 212,419 1,716,475 2.67% August 2,138,683 466,812 2,180,039 1.93% September 2,356,833 218,149 2,402,406 1.93% October 2,549,604 192,771 2,598,905 1.93% November 2,766,495 216,890 2,819,990 1.93% December 2,959,725 193,230 3,016,957 1.93% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Meter Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Storm Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 154 of 787 22 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 434,795$ 434,795$ 479,087$ 10.19% February 786,497 351,702 860,724 9.44% March 1,218,216 431,719 1,335,216 9.60% April 1,568,380 350,165 1,717,700 9.52% May 2,004,398 436,018 2,195,896 9.55% June 2,358,600 354,202 2,584,030 9.56% July 2,803,274 444,674 3,069,159 9.48% August 3,161,173 357,899 3,458,097 9.39% September 3,614,263 453,090 3,953,744 9.39% October 3,973,096 358,833 4,346,282 9.39% November 4,416,998 443,903 4,831,879 9.39% December 4,773,750 356,752 5,222,140 9.39% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2014 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Unmeter Sewer Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 155 of 787 23 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 4,342,738$ 4,342,738$ 4,116,199$ -5.22% February 7,273,314 2,930,576 5,980,774 -17.77% March 10,373,710 3,100,396 9,514,450 -8.28% April 14,046,348 3,672,638 14,163,986 0.84% May 16,394,689 2,348,341 16,009,991 -2.35% June 20,180,422 3,785,734 18,147,195 -10.08% July 23,897,639 3,717,217 20,853,841 -12.74% August 26,837,435 2,939,796 24,534,725 -8.58% September 30,675,167 3,837,732 28,043,172 -8.58% October 33,407,197 2,732,030 30,540,788 -8.58% November 36,447,336 3,040,139 33,320,077 -8.58% December 41,200,664 4,753,328 37,665,559 -8.58% Non-Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 3,068,401$ 3,068,401$ 2,396,214$ -21.91% February 3,846,233 777,832 2,563,640 -33.35% March 4,950,102 1,103,869 4,388,210 -11.35% April 6,682,580 1,732,478 7,277,792 8.91% May 6,906,919 224,339 7,363,650 6.61% June 9,057,540 2,150,621 7,709,624 -14.88% July 10,731,894 1,674,353 8,424,155 -21.50% August 11,362,211 630,317 10,027,805 -11.74% September 13,308,539 1,946,329 11,745,552 -11.74% October 13,878,772 570,233 12,248,815 -11.74% November 14,484,996 606,224 12,783,843 -11.74% December 17,816,558 3,331,562 15,724,138 -11.74% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 40000000 45000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000 16000000 18000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Non-Departmental Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 156 of 787 24 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 17,436$ 17,436$ 14,710$ -15.64% February 37,196 19,760 29,242 -21.38% March 56,930 19,734 46,539 -18.25% April 74,661 17,731 65,481 -12.29% May 91,717 17,056 85,284 -7.01% June 111,368 19,651 110,659 -0.64% July 133,849 22,481 129,296 -3.40% August 154,203 20,355 145,411 -5.70% September 171,728 17,524 161,936 -5.70% October 193,996 22,268 182,935 -5.70% November 214,250 20,254 202,034 -5.70% December 238,644 24,394 225,038 -5.70% Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 21,493$ 21,493$ 19,866$ -7.57% February 42,845$ 21,353$ 40,990 -4.33% March 63,933$ 21,088$ 61,132 -4.38% April 84,211$ 20,278$ 82,041 -2.58% May 104,565$ 20,354$ 102,277 -2.19% June 125,279$ 20,714$ 122,235 -2.43% July 146,686$ 21,408$ 143,210 -2.37% August 167,273$ 20,586$ 163,387 -2.32% September 187,312$ 20,039$ 182,960 -2.32% October 209,955$ 22,643$ 205,077 -2.32% November 231,093$ 21,138$ 225,724 -2.32% December 251,085$ 19,992$ 245,252 -2.32% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Council Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Office of Mayor Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 157 of 787 25 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 25,798$ 25,798$ 27,275$ 5.72% February 52,555 26,756 60,853 15.79% March 84,843 32,288 88,106 3.85% April 114,019 29,176 112,767 -1.10% May 143,795 29,775 142,206 -1.10% June 171,136 27,342 172,043 0.53% July 199,812 28,676 199,033 -0.39% August 225,905 26,093 228,816 1.29% September 257,927 32,022 261,251 1.29% October 285,341 27,413 289,018 1.29% November 310,098 24,757 314,094 1.29% December 349,938 39,840 354,448 1.29% Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 59,240$ 59,240$ 58,367$ -1.47% February 125,452 66,212 116,841 -6.86% March 193,525 68,074 198,204 2.42% April 262,436 68,911 257,767 -1.78% May 327,513 65,077 320,047 -2.28% June 396,410 68,897 384,624 -2.97% July 459,812 63,402 451,412 -1.83% August 527,281 67,468 516,393 -2.06% September 590,660 63,379 578,464 -2.06% October 658,527 67,868 644,930 -2.06% November 725,443 66,915 710,463 -2.06% December 801,872 76,429 785,315 -2.06% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Human Resources Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Municipal Court Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 158 of 787 26 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 31,471$ 31,471$ 24,299$ -22.79% February 80,480 49,009 54,146 -32.72% March 121,436 40,956 83,578 -31.18% April 161,422 39,986 160,955 -0.29% May 203,742 42,320 177,081 -13.09% June 240,317 36,574 200,183 -16.70% July 291,509 51,193 227,071 -22.11% August 327,786 36,277 262,287 -19.98% September 366,394 38,607 293,180 -19.98% October 408,391 41,998 326,785 -19.98% November 444,482 36,090 355,664 -19.98% December 508,024 63,542 406,509 -19.98% City Clerk Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 39,751$ 39,751$ 40,227$ 1.20% February 81,417 41,666 85,455 4.96% March 128,867 47,450 127,044 -1.41% April 170,636 41,769 164,667 -3.50% May 217,171 46,535 209,795 -3.40% June 257,997 40,826 246,693 -4.38% July 303,101 45,105 290,408 -4.19% August 347,896 44,795 334,638 -3.81% September 395,264 47,368 380,201 -3.81% October 442,040 46,776 425,194 -3.81% November 489,440 47,400 470,787 -3.81% December 537,273 47,833 516,797 -3.81% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Community Services/Economic Development Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Clerk Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 159 of 787 27 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 74,247$ 74,247$ 58,589$ -21.09% February 166,823 92,577 139,016 -16.67% March 242,406 75,582 181,347 -25.19% April 312,265 69,859 227,941 -27.00% May 382,435 70,170 256,132 -33.03% June 445,798 63,363 291,238 -34.67% July 502,085 56,287 443,744 -11.62% August 553,875 51,790 623,612 12.59% September 614,928 61,053 692,352 12.59% October 688,034 73,106 774,663 12.59% November 778,774 90,740 876,827 12.59% December 965,791 187,017 1,087,391 12.59% Finance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 76,488$ 76,488$ 130,464$ 70.57% February 146,752 70,263 153,899 4.87% March 212,713 65,961 209,473 -1.52% April 274,608 61,895 271,170 -1.25% May 335,512 60,905 332,822 -0.80% June 406,136 70,624 392,246 -3.42% July 470,869 64,733 452,362 -3.93% August 528,622 57,753 511,477 -3.24% September 592,790 64,168 573,564 -3.24% October 665,109 72,319 643,537 -3.24% November 735,415 70,306 711,562 -3.24% December 808,429 73,014 782,208 -3.24% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Information Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Finance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 160 of 787 28 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 46,492$ 46,492$ 32,000$ -31.17% February 92,983 46,492 91,366 -1.74% March 139,475 46,492 123,381 -11.54% April 185,967 46,492 186,128 0.09% May 232,458 46,492 231,890 -0.24% June 278,950 46,492 279,764 0.29% July 325,442 46,492 325,422 -0.01% August 371,933 46,492 330,595 -11.11% September 418,425 46,492 371,919 -11.11% October 464,916 46,492 413,243 -11.11% November 511,408 46,492 454,567 -11.11% December 557,900 46,492 495,892 -11.11% Police Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 694,934$ 694,934$ 681,573$ -1.92% February 1,396,727 701,792 1,369,842 -1.92% March 2,108,550 711,824 2,062,997 -2.16% April 2,804,359 695,808 2,754,778 -1.77% May 3,483,663 679,305 3,458,116 -0.73% June 4,223,782 740,119 4,215,558 -0.19% July 4,932,717 708,934 4,897,465 -0.71% August 5,641,058 708,341 5,599,938 -0.73% September 6,384,074 743,016 6,337,537 -0.73% October 7,087,171 703,097 7,035,509 -0.73% November 8,045,281 958,110 7,986,635 -0.73% December 8,824,364 779,083 8,760,039 -0.73% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Police 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Attorney Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Police Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 161 of 787 29 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 182,478$ 182,478$ 126,887$ -30.46% February 364,463 181,986 257,352 -29.39% March 569,107 204,643 387,354 -31.94% April 747,348 178,241 523,426 -29.96% May 923,916 176,568 678,695 -26.54% June 1,094,697 170,781 826,994 -24.45% July 1,273,462 178,765 997,833 -21.64% August 1,462,616 189,154 1,193,443 -18.40% September 1,646,105 183,489 1,343,163 -18.40% October 1,844,010 197,905 1,504,646 -18.40% November 2,028,039 184,029 1,654,807 -18.40% December 2,219,366 191,327 1,810,923 -18.40% Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 244,774$ 244,774$ 237,608$ -2.93% February 514,038 269,264 486,587 -5.34% March 801,588 287,550 732,519 -8.62% April 1,080,098 278,510 977,642 -9.49% May 1,372,430 292,332 1,271,826 -7.33% June 1,717,333 344,903 1,534,299 -10.66% July 2,157,762 440,430 1,921,487 -10.95% August 2,594,645 436,883 2,368,651 -8.71% September 2,924,625 329,980 2,669,890 -8.71% October 3,213,467 288,842 2,933,573 -8.71% November 3,478,070 264,603 3,175,129 -8.71% December 3,826,916 348,846 3,493,591 -8.71% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation 0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000 2400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Development Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Parks & Recreation Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 162 of 787 30 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 29,205$ 29,205$ 27,811$ -4.77% February 57,374 28,169 55,607 -3.08% March 85,998 28,624 84,738 -1.47% April 113,676 27,678 114,745 0.94% May 142,297 28,621 142,879 0.41% June 171,373 29,077 171,032 -0.20% July 210,538 39,164 199,315 -5.33% August 238,755 28,217 227,438 -4.74% September 266,891 28,136 254,240 -4.74% October 296,178 29,287 282,139 -4.74% November 322,670 26,492 307,375 -4.74% December 354,098 31,428 337,314 -4.74% Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 109,761$ 109,761$ 118,162$ 7.65% February 228,319 118,558 229,255 0.41% March 356,501 128,182 363,708 2.02% April 468,975 112,475 481,545 2.68% May 583,345 114,370 588,147 0.82% June 696,280 112,934 696,472 0.03% July 809,237 112,957 825,520 2.01% August 918,038 108,802 940,041 2.40% September 1,038,936 120,897 1,063,836 2.40% October 1,145,093 106,158 1,172,538 2.40% November 1,265,760 120,666 1,296,096 2.40% December 1,405,827 140,067 1,439,521 2.40% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works 2014 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Public Works Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Facilities Maintenance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 163 of 787 31 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 145,346$ 145,346$ 122,149$ -15.96% February 292,949 147,603 246,682 -15.79% March 437,616 144,667 376,122 -14.05% April 582,646 145,030 505,140 -13.30% May 725,109 142,463 649,144 -10.48% June 866,319 141,210 793,532 -8.40% July 1,007,948 141,630 926,107 -8.12% August 1,150,544 142,595 1,060,795 -7.80% September 1,298,303 147,759 1,197,028 -7.80% October 1,452,811 154,508 1,339,483 -7.80% November 1,596,130 143,319 1,471,622 -7.80% December 1,734,579 138,449 1,599,271 -7.80% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering 2014 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Engineering Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 164 of 787 32 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Washington State Local Government Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 28,447,798$ Various 0.09% 0.057% Snohomish County Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 15,041,658$ Various 0.71% 0.227% Opus Bank Certificate of Deposit 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.006% FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.019% FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.016% FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.011% TOTAL 46,989,456$ 0.34%0.337% Investment Mix % of Total State Investment Pool 60.5% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.05% Certificate of Deposit 1.1% Current State Pool rate 0.09% Bonds 6.4% Blended Edmonds rate 0.34% Snohomish County Investment Pool 32.0% 100.0% (a) To maturity. Rate Comparison City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of August 31, 2014 Packet Page 165 of 787 33 GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD 001-General Fund 6,834,380$ 9,957,323$ 7,627,479$ 3,737,513$ 793,100$ 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 440,744 279,334 539,560 (62,036) 98,815 011-Risk Management Fund 387,195 387,503 387,678 308 483 012 - Contingency Reserve Fund 5,376,796 5,387,471 5,389,921 4,310 13,125 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,903 55,929 44 70 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,062 1,064 1,064 1 2 016-Building Maintenance 64,762 195,879 178,122 (43,857) 113,360 Total General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 14,179,753$ 3,636,283$ 1,018,955$ GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.16 $16.26 $14.18 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014 Mi l l i o n s General Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Packet Page 166 of 787 34 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 14,179,753$ 3,636,283$ 1,018,955$ Special Revenue 5,373,323 6,160,031 6,328,709 (378,461) 955,386 Debt Service 57,161 57,541 72,813 (1,075) 15,652 Total Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 20,581,276$ 3,256,747$ 1,989,993$ CHANGE IN FUND BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.16 $16.26 $14.18 $5.37 $6.16 $6.33 $0.06 $0.06 $0.07 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014 Mi l l i o n s General Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmental Fund Balances-By Fund Group $18.59 $22.48 $20.58 - 6 12 18 24 Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014 Mi l l i o n s Governmental Fund Balances -Combined *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Packet Page 167 of 787 35 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 91,432$ 96,001$ 80,054$ (11,334)$ (11,378)$ 111 - Street Fund 215,200 109,281 400,564 (62,820) 185,364 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 481,154 569,751 (99,158) (661,906) (580,312) 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 431,932 427,425 429,656 (6,649) (2,276) 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,703 17,734 17,742 14 39 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 106,735 118,342 126,037 (1,667) 19,301 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 61,719 71,944 73,227 1,557 11,507 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 13,858 12,919 12,489 (495) (1,370) 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 70,429 77,709 78,632 3,300 8,203 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,101,453 1,450,052 1,682,578 190,282 581,126 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 760,453 1,140,808 1,388,813 178,323 628,360 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 225,677 247,909 245,909 2,432 20,232 129 - Special Projects Fund 15,289 46,392 46,409 6,674 31,119 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 70,203 65,975 90,672 (6,713) 20,469 132 - Parks Construction Fund 718,446 707,475 751,996 (13,804) 33,550 136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,334 150,676 150,744 195 410 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 839,292 847,898 851,358 4,151 12,066 138 - Sister City Commission 2,014 1,742 989 (1) (1,025) Total Special Revenue 5,373,323$ 6,160,031$ 6,328,709$ (378,461)$ 955,386$ GOVERNMENTAL Special Revenue FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $5.37 $6.16 $6.33 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014 Mi l l i o n s Special Revenue Special Revenue Funds *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Packet Page 168 of 787 36 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund 15,244,015$ 15,591,456$ 15,928,962$ (143,447)$ 684,947$ 422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,184,099 9,534,131 9,881,053 (214,263) 696,954 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,359,087 42,916,883 42,926,386 (1,080,129) (432,701) 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 787,224 446,817 787,224 (397,143) 0 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 132,280 180,629 63,081 180,629 Total Enterprise Funds 68,574,425$ 68,621,567$ 69,704,254$ (1,771,901)$ 1,129,829$ ENTERPRISE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $180,629 $15,928,962 $9,881,053 $42,926,386 $787,224 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 Combined Utility Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve Enterprise Fund Balances as of August 31, 2014 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycle Packet Page 169 of 787 37 SUMMARY OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 20,581,276$ 3,256,747$ 1,989,993$ Enterprise Funds 68,574,425 68,621,567 69,704,254 (1,771,901) 1,129,829 Internal Services Fund 6,847,165 7,110,620 7,228,359 2,827 381,194 Agency Funds 247,178 296,620 301,304 44,589 54,126 Total City-wide Total 94,260,051$ 98,510,856$ 97,815,192$ 1,532,262$ 3,555,141$ CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- $98,497 $202,807 $7,228,359 $47,968 $24,953 $989 $851,358 $150,744 $751,996 $90,672 $46,409 $245,909 $1,388,813 $1,682,578 $78,632 $12,489 $73,227 $126,037 $17,742 $429,656 $400,564 $80,054 $14,179,753 $1 $20,000,000 Business Improvement District Firemen's Pension Fund Equipment Rental Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $(108) L.I.D. Guaranty Fund L.I.D. Fund Control Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve $(99,158) Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund Governmental Fund Balances as of August 31, 2014 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Packet Page 170 of 787 38 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2013 6/30/2014 8/31/2014 Q2 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,228,359$ 2,827$ 381,194$ Total Internal Service Funds 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,228,359$ 2,827$ 381,194$ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $6.85 $7.11 $7.23 - 2 4 6 8 Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014 Mi l l i o n s 511 - Equipment Rental Fund Internal Service Fund Balances *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Packet Page 171 of 787 AM-7177 5. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subject Title Ordinance amending Chapter 4.72 of the Edmonds City Code related to Business License Fees and Penalties Recommendation Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 4.72 of the Edmonds City Code on the Consent Agenda. Previous Council Action City staff presented their recommendation to the Council Finance Committee on August 12, 2014. Committee members agreed with the recommendation and suggested prominently identifying in the annual renewal letter that the late fee has increased. A draft letter is included as Attachment 3. The attached Business License Renewal form will be updated to prominently display the new late fee schedule. Narrative For many years, the Development Services Department, in conjunction with the City Clerk’s office, has considered ways to improve compliance with business license requirements. While the majority of businesses respect and comply with these requirements, each year the City expends a disproportionate amount of resources to gain compliance from the minority of businesses that fail to renew their business license in a timely manner. The purpose of this memorandum is to explore options for reducing waste and maximizing resources in the City Clerk’s Office and to relieve Code Enforcement from excessive referrals relative to City business licenses. The Clerk’s Office endeavors to achieve compliance with delinquent businesses as a first line of enforcement. The business license renewal fee is $50, and the late fee penalty is $25. The Clerk’s Office goes to great lengths to encourage businesses to comply with City license regulations. This often involves phone calls and follow-up letters to the delinquent businesses. When these efforts fail to result in compliance, the Business License Clerk sends the cases to Code Enforcement in the Development Services Department. The annual number of cases referred to Code Enforcement following Clerk Office due diligence is outlined as follows: 2011- 63 cases 2012- 70 cases 2013- 58 cases 2014- 75 cases (and counting) When Code Enforcement receives a case, its efforts consist of the following: Packet Page 172 of 787 1. Logging into computer case log. 2. Commencing enforcement action, including but not limited to: a. Sending a minimum of 1 letter to business b. Creating an Order to Correct (OTC) to mail, post at property, or both. c. Pursuing other avenues to contact business in order to avoid assessing fines d. Issuing a Notice of Violation (rarely, and as a last resort) e. Closing and filing case The Code Enforcement Officer estimates that approximately half the delinquent businesses ignore the initial letter (and Clerk’s Office prior letters), and further enforcement actions become necessary. In addition, the Code Enforcement Officer personally visits many of the businesses after they’ve ignored the OTC. Usually the Code Enforcement Officer achieves compliance upon his visit, but at that point the City has spent approximately $200+ to obtain the $50 renewal fee and $25.00 penalty, not to mention time lost that could have been used elsewhere. Although the letters prepared and issued by the department are primarily based on templates, additional activities and expenses are often necessary, such as phone calls, client visits, postage, file creation, monitoring, business visits, and other, often inefficient, non-systematic renewal activities. Staff has had several discussions at various times about ways to incentivize the timely renewal of business licenses. Staff has considered the advantages and disadvantages of imposing an "administrative," "investigative," or "penalty" fee to those cases that are sent to Code Enforcement for final resolution. For example, initially, staff considered proposing a code enforcement fee, similar to a permit fee, for those cases referred to Code Enforcement, in an effort to recoup some of the costs associated with investigating and resolving delinquent cases. However, those methods likely wouldn’t stop the violations at the source department (Clerk’s Office) and would still require unnecessary administrative costs in both departments. Rather than impose an investigation fee in the Code Enforcement phase, staff believes that simply raising the Clerk’s late fee from $25 to $100 is the most cost-effective and efficient way to create the necessary incentive to encourage compliance. It is important to note that investigation fees, or a higher Clerk penalty fee, would not adversely impact the vast majority of Edmonds businesses, whose owners fortunately renew their licenses on time. However, for the relative few who do not comply, staff spends thousands of dollars for every few hundred dollars it collects in late fees. It is important to note that raising the late fee would only affect the businesses that abuse the system, and over time, these would phase out as they prefer not to pay the additional fee. Our current fee does nothing to encourage indifferent businesses to comply with the Code. Staff believes that a fee of no less than $100 (or double the cost of the license renewal fee) is the minimum amount required to create an adequate incentive to comply. Staff feels this would reduce the number of cases referred to Development Services, and for the ones that are referred, the additional fee would likely reduce the chance for further late violations. If the late fee penalty can work as a true incentive to renew on time, staff would save hundreds of hours that could be used on other priorities, and in many cases result in higher levels of service to the business community. Although it is essentially a fee increase, most businesses already comply and the penalty fee is completely avoidable. As such, we consider this an appropriate incentive and fully expect late fee revenues to decrease over time. While striving to maintain the reputation that Edmonds is a business-friendly community, we recognize that it is never a good time to propose higher fees on businesses.. This is why we view this proposal as an incentive that will result in a net benefit to the business sector and community at large. Packet Page 173 of 787 Attachments Attachment 1 - 08-12-14 Fin Committee minutes excerpt Attachment 2 - Business License Late Fee Ordinance Attachment 3 - Business License Renewal Letter and Form Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/02/2014 09:03 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 174 of 787 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 175 of 787 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 176 of 787 ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4.72 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES WHEREAS, the city has an adopted business license program and associated fees and penalties in chapter 4.72 ECC; and WHEREAS, the city expends a disproportionate amount of time and resources to gain compliance from a small minority of businesses that fail to renew their business license in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the city has explored various options for reducing waste and maximizing resources in the City Clerk’s Office and relieving Code Enforcement from excessive referrals relative to City business licenses; and WHEREAS, the city has concluded that amending business license application due dates and penalties for late applications and/or payments is the most efficient and logical way to encourage compliance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 4.27 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Business License,” is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.72.040 Fee – Terms – Penalty. A. Commending January 1, 1977, business licenses required to be obtained pursuant to this chapter, shall be issued on a calendar year basis and shall expire on December 31st of the year for which they are issued. B. Fees for an annual business license issued hereunder shall be as follows: Packet Page 177 of 787 1. The fee for an application for a new business license for any business that is not a home occupation, as provided in Chapter 20.20 ECDC, to be operated from any real estate within the city of Edmonds shall be $125.00; 2. The fee for an application for a new business license for a new home occupation business, as provided in Chapter 20.20 ECDC, to be operated from any residential real estate within the city of Edmonds shall be $100.00; 3. The fee for an application for a new business license for any other business conducted for, under contract with or by providing services to any person within the city shall be $50.00; and 4. The fee for an application for an annual renewal of a business license shall be $50.00 for any business operated within the city of Edmonds. C. All businesses required to obtain renew licenses hereunder shall obtain the same and pay all fees required on or before February 15th January 31st of each respective year; provided, however, that for the year 1981 only, businesses shall be required to obtain the licenses before April 1. Any business which fails to obtain renew and pay the license fees within said period of time shall, in addition to any other penalties provided in this chapter, be assessed an penalty for such late application and/or payment. amount equal to 50 percent of the license fee for said business as a penalty for such late application and/or payment. The penalty for late renewal and/or payment made between February 1st and February 28th of each respective year shall be equal to 100 percent of the license fee for said business. The penalty for late renewal and/or payment made after February 28th of each respective year shall be equal to 200 percent of the license fee for said business. D. Repealed by Ord. 3036. [Ord. 3710 § 1, 2008; Ord. 3282 § 2, 1999; Ord. 3084 § 1, 1996; Ord. 3036 §§ 1, 2, 1995; Ord. 2191 §§ 1, 2, 1981; Ord. 1828 § 1, 1976; Ord. 1139 § 1, 1965]. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Page 178 of 787 Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 179 of 787 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _______ day of __________________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4.72 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of _______________, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 180 of 787 Date Dear Edmonds business owner: This is your annual reminder that it is time to renew your City of Edmonds business license. You are important to the business community and the City. We would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that the late fee penalties for license renewals have changed, as follows: 1. If your license renewal is paid during the month of January, there is no late fee penalty. 2. If your license renewal is paid during the month of February, the late fee penalty will be $50 (100% the cost of the license). 3. If your license renewal is paid any time after February, the late fee penalty will be $100 (200% the cost of the license). Please use the enclosed form to renew your business license. W e are committed to providing excellent customer service to our many and varied customers, including our business community. We're here to help, so if you have questions for staff, please call our general information number at 425.775.2525. Again, thank you for being a part of our great community of businesses that offers a wide variety of goods and services. Sincerely, Packet Page 181 of 787 Packet Page 182 of 787 AM-7178 5. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Action Information Subject Title Ordinance amending ECC Chapters 4.20 and 4.26 related to the Processing of Notices of Pending State-issued Liquor and Marijuana Licenses Recommendation Adopt Ordinance amending ECC Chapters 4.20 and 4.26 on the Consent Agenda.. Previous Council Action In early 2014, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 3969, which created procedures for processing notices of pending state-issued marijuana licenses. These procedures were codified in Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 4.26 and mirror the noticing procedures used for state-issued liquor licenses. Staff presented its recommendation to the Council Public Safety and Personnel Committee on August 12, 2014. The Committee suggested that staff provide a short presentation to the full City Council. This item was presented to the Council on August 19, and Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to remove Council from the license review process. Narrative Liquor License Application Review Process There are essentially two ways cities receive notification of a liquor license application from the State: 1) Individual, or first-time applications; and 2) lists of existing liquor license applications that are up for renewal. In reviewing our liquor license review process, it was discovered that staff has not been processing all applications according to the Code. ECC Chapter 4.20 states that the Mayor shall forward his liquor license application recommendations to the City Council for review and approval. This procedure has heretofore only been followed with the lists of renewal license applications, not for the individual (new) license applications. Although we believe the correct interpretation of the code requires us to forward recommendations for all license applications – new as well as renewals – to the Council for review, doing so will be very challenging given the relevant timelines. According to RCW 66.24.010(8), the Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) must notify the City of a pending liquor license; the City has 20 days from the date of the notice to give input on the application. This 20-day timeline is often cut to as little as 15-16 days, either due to WSLCB delays or delays in the mail service. If the WSLCB does not receive notice back within 20 days, it assumes the City has no objection to license issuance. Because of the frequency of individual license application notices received by the Packet Page 183 of 787 City, coupled with the tight turnaround time to respond, it would not only be extremely burdensome and time-consuming to process all liquor licenses for Council review, but also very difficult to accomplish within the 20-day window. Sometimes it can be a challenge to process the license application in 20 days, even without Council review. ECC Chapter 4.20 was codified in 1971, and from a staff perspective is a very antiquated and inefficient way to process liquor license notifications. Most jurisdictions handle liquor license review as a purely administrative matter and do not involve the legislative body. Following receipt of a license application, it is distributed to all relevant departments, which review the application for code compliance. If no objections are found, the notice is returned to the WSLCB with an “approval” recommendation. It is important to note that although the WSLCB gives sufficient weight to a city’s recommendation, the WSLCB is the ultimate decision-maker for liquor license issuance. Any recommendation for disapproval must be based on a valid reason, such as public safety concerns related to crime, school proximity, etc. The City should not disapprove of a liquor license due to lack of compliance with unrelated codes, such as signage or business license regulations. Therefore, staff recommended that the Council direct the City Attorney to draft a code amendment to take the City Council out of the liquor license review process. As the legislative body, the City Council is responsible for fulfilling the City’s policy-making role; as such, it should not be distracted with policy administration, which is a staff responsibility. If a change is not made, staff will no doubt need to modify the review process. This will cause a substantial increase in the number of liquor license recommendations submitted on City Council agendas, as well as the associated effort to create and submit weekly agenda memoranda. Due to the time constraints, it may also mean dispensing with inter-department routing and reviews, which have been done in the past. Marijuana License Application Review Process Given that the same timeframes apply to marijuana license application review, staff recommends that ECC Chapter 4.26 also be amended to reflect the proposed liquor license review changes. Attachments Attachment 1 - PSP Committee minutes Attachment 2 - 08-19-14 Approved Council Meeting minutes excerpt Attachment 3 - Ordinance amending ECC 4.20 & 4.26 Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/02/2014 09:03 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 184 of 787 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 185 of 787 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 186 of 787 ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 4.20 AND 4.26 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF NOTICES OF PENDING STATE ISSUED LIQUOR AND MARIJUANA LICENSES WHEREAS, the city has an adopted process for investigating state-issued liquor and marijuana licenses in chapters 4.20 and 4.26 ECC; and WHEREAS, in order to efficiently comply with State review timeframes and deadlines, the city council desires that the mayor direct the administrative review process for liquor and marijuana license applications without the involvement of the legislative body; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 4.20 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Liquor License - Investigations,” is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.20.010 Processing of notices of pending liquor licenses. A. Upon receipt by the mayor of a notice of a pending application before the Liquor Control Board of a liquor license within the city of Edmonds, the mayor shall make such investigations as he deems appropriate, including but not limited to directing an investigation by city employees such as the police department, and at the first available council meeting state his recommendations as to objection or lack of objection against the applicant or the premises for which the license is asked. The city council, sitting in public meeting, shall thereupon vote upon the recommendation of the mayor and instruct the mayor to approve affirmatively or by acquiescence the recommendation of the city council to the Liquor Control Board. fire department, and development services department. Based upon the outcome of the investigation, the mayor shall transmit his approval or disapproval regarding both the applicant and the proposed location per applicable Liquor Control Board standards. B. In the alternative, and in the event the council finds the application objectionable, it shall instruct the mayor to transmit to the Liquor Control Board the objections had by the council against the applicant or against the premises for which the license is asked, and shall include in such instructions the facts upon which such objections are based. In the event the council has found objection to the application it shall appoint one of its Packet Page 187 of 787 members so finding to make the oral argument in support of such objections in the event the Liquor Control Board fixes a time for oral argument. C. In the event the city council may not have a public hearing scheduled within the 10- day period following the transmittal of the notice from the Liquor Control Board, upon receipt of the notice from the Liquor Control Board the mayor shall immediately request an extension of the 10-day period from the Liquor Control Board to provide time for the council to register its approval or objections. Section 2. Chapter 4.26 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Marijuana License - Investigations,” is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.26.010 Processing of notices of pending marijuana licenses. A. Investigation by Mayor. Upon receipt by the city of a notice of a marijuana license application from the Washington State Liquor Control Board to produce, process, or sell marijuana within the city of Edmonds, the mayor shall make such investigation of the applicant and location as he deems appropriate, including but not limited to directing an investigation by city employees such as the police department, fire department, and/or development services department. Based upon the outcome of the investigation, the mayor shall transmit his approval or disapproval regarding both the applicant and the proposed location per applicable Liquor Control Board standards. B. Notification and Recommendation to City Council. The mayor shall transmit to the city council a recommendation of approval or objection regarding both the applicant and the proposed location. The recommendation shall be considered at the first available city council meeting following conclusion of the mayor’s investigation, but in no event shall it be considered by the city council later than 19 days after the date of the notice from the Liquor Control Board. The city council, sitting in public meeting, shall thereupon consider and vote upon the recommendation of the mayor. C. Approval/Acquiescence. In the event the city council finds the application acceptable, it shall instruct the mayor to transmit the city council’s approval to the Liquor Control Board. D. Objection. In the event the city council finds the application objectionable, it shall instruct the mayor to transmit to the Liquor Control Board the objections had by the council against the applicant or against the premises for which the license is asked, and shall include in such instructions the facts upon which such objections are based. E. Request for Hearing. In the event the council has found objection to the application it shall also determine whether it would like to request an adjudicative hearing before final action is taken on the license by the Liquor Control Board. If the city council would like a hearing, it shall direct the city attorney to make the oral argument in support of such objections in the event the Liquor Control Board fixes a time for oral argument. Packet Page 188 of 787 F. Request for Extension of Time to Consider Application. In the event the city council may not have a public hearing scheduled within the 19-day period following the transmittal of the notice from the Liquor Control Board, upon receipt of the notice from the Liquor Control Board the mayor shall immediately request an extension of the 20-day period from the Liquor Control Board to provide time for the council to register its approval or objections. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 189 of 787 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _______ day of __________________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 4.20 AND 4.26 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF NOTICES OF PENDING STATE ISSUED LIQUOR AND MARIJUANA LICENSES . The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of _______________, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 190 of 787 AM-7173 5. G. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Confirmation of Karyn Heinekin to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Recommendation The Edmonds Sister City Commission and Mayor Earling recommend Karyn Heinekin's appointment to the Commission. Previous Council Action Narrative Please confirm Sister City Commission candidate Karyn Heinekin to Position #10 on the ESCC. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 07:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 08:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 08:18 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/01/2014 04:38 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 191 of 787 AM-7174 5. H. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Removal of residence located at 533 - 3rd Avenue South from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Recommendation Adopt ordinance included as Exhibit 1 to remove the residence from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and remove the "HR" designation from the official zoning map. Previous Council Action The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3754 on October 6th, 2009 placing the residence on the Historic Register (Exhibit 2). Narrative The residence located at 533 – 3rd Avenue South was placed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2009 under Ordinance No. 3754. Once a property is placed on the Register, prior to commencing any work on a register property, the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for the proposed work. During the public hearing before the HPC, the property owner noted plans for a future addition to the house and expressed concerns that placing a property on the register may impede his ability to proceed with the planned addition. The HPC assured the property owner he would retain the ability to remove the house from the Register at any point in the future (Exhibit 3). The property owner has recently submitted a building permit for the planned addition under BLD20140814 (Exhibit 4). The HPC reviewed the proposed addition at the September 11, 2014 meeting and concluded the addition does not meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Exhibit 5). The property owner has verbally requested the property be removed from the register. The HPC held a public meeting on September 18, 2014 at which they concluded the proposed addition would alter the residence to such a degree that it would no longer meet the criteria for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Given the building official cannot issue a building permit for a Register property without a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant has requested the property be removed from the Register, and the proposed addition would alter the residence so it no longer meets the criteria for listing on the Register, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended to the City Council that the property be removed from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (Exhibit 6). Exhibit 7 is the Staff Memorandum to the Historic Preservation Commission for the September 18, 2014 meeting. Packet Page 192 of 787 Attachments Exhibit 1 - Proposed Ordinance to Remove 533 - 3rd Ave S from Historic Register Exhibit 2 - Ordinance No. 3754 Exhibit 3 - August 13, 2009 HPC Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 4 - Elevation View of Proposed Addition (redline outline highlights existing register property) Exhibit 5 - September 11, 2014 HPC Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6 - September 18, 2014 HPC Minutes Exhibit 7 - September 18, 2014 Staff Memorandum to HPC Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 03:41 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 03:44 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 04:18 PM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 10/02/2014 08:07 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 193 of 787 kpl 10/01/2014 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE REMOVING THE RESIDENCE AT 533 3rd AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO REMOVE THE "HR" DESIGNATION FOR SITE FROM THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the residence at 533 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, was placed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2009 under Ordinance No. 3754; and WHEREAS, prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, for properties that are on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the City of Edmonds building official cannot issue a building permit without a Register property first receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the property owner of the residence at 533 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington has proposed a 2,656 square foot addition with a 200 square garage to the Register property, and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public meeting on September 18, 2014, to consider the eligibility of the proposed addition for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and Packet Page 194 of 787 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found the proposed addition does not meet the criteria for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found the proposed addition would alter the residence at 533 3rd Avenue South to such an extent that the property would no longer be eligible for listing on the Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS, after consideration the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the residence be removed from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the owner has expressed his desire for the property be removed from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the chapter 20.45 ECDC, the chapter governing the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, is premised upon participation through owner consent; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission to remove the resident at 533 3rd Avenue South from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The residence 533 3rd Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby removed from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Section 2. The Development Services Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to remove the “HR” designation for the site from the Edmonds zoning map. This removal of the designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification. Packet Page 195 of 787 Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ______ JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____ Packet Page 196 of 787 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 7th day of October, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE REMOVING THE RESIDENCE AT 533 3rd AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO REMOVE THE "HR" DESIGNATION FOR SITE FROM THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ___ day of October, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 197 of 787 Packet Page 198 of 787 Packet Page 199 of 787 Packet Page 200 of 787 Packet Page 201 of 787 Packet Page 202 of 787 APPROVED September 10th CITY OF EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES August 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 4:35 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Larry Vogel, Vice Chair Jennifer Anttila (arrived at 4:37 p.m.) Sue Bauer (arrived at 4:45 p.m.) Daniel Kerege Eric Norenberg Larry Vogel Steve Waite Michael Plunkett (arrived at 4:55 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Planner, Planning and Development Services Karin Noyes, Recorder COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Andy Eccleshall, Chair Christine Deiner-Karr Alan Macfarlane READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ANTTILA MOVED THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2009 AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 533 THIRD AVAENUE SOUTH FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) (FILE NUMBER HPC-09-35) Mr. Lien reviewed the staff report and noted that the property owners have signed the authorization form that would allow the property to be listed on the Register. He described the significant features of the structure and noted that it is situated in a residential neighborhood just east of City Park. The neighborhood consists of a mix of homes, the majority being constructed during the latter half of the twentieth century. He referred to the designation criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing nominations for the Register and noted the application would be consistent with the following: Packet Page 203 of 787 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 2 Criteria 1 – Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house is associated with the residential growth of Edmonds and is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow residential design. Criteria 2 – Has integrity. The building retains its original appearance. Criteria 3 – Age at least 50 years old, or had exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The house was constructed in 1921. Category b – Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The house is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow residential design, which was a popular residential design of the time. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission find the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features, not including the garage. He recommended the property be listed as proposed. Ryan Stoulil, property owner, explained that while he and his wife are interested in having the property listed on the Register, they are planning an addition and are interested in learning more about how the designation might impact their future plans. He said it is his understanding that if the property is listed on the Register, the addition would require Commission approval. He requested more information about what this process would involve. He also questioned if it would be possible to remove the house from the Register at some point in the future if he was unable to obtain Commission approval to move forward with the planned addition. He said he would likely opt out of the tax incentive, since they would be taxed retroactively if they were to remove the house from the Register. The Commissioners clarified that the property owner would not be required to apply for the tax incentive, and he would retain the ability to remove his house from the Register at any point in the future. The Commission and staff reviewed the process for obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. It was emphasized that if his property were listed on the Register, the Commission would be eager to assist him with his plans to add on. Commissioner Bauer pointed out that the City is a newly formed Certified Local Government (CLG), and no one on the Register has asked for a certificate of appropriateness. She asked what kind of drawings would be required for the Commission’s review. Mr. Lien explained that the Commission would review the drawings that are submitted as part of the building permit, which would include views from all four elevations. The Commission agreed it would be appropriate to conduct pre-application meetings with property owners to review rough sketches of the proposal and provide a preliminary recommendation, but the actual certificate of appropriateness could not be issued until formal drawings have been submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Waite inquired if the detached garage would be part of the designation. Mr. Lien answered that it was not included in the application or the evaluation. Mr. Stoulil said he would not be opposed to including the garage since they don’t have any plans to alter it at this time. Mr. Lien advised that the BOLA report only identified the significant features on the house. Mr. Lien cautioned that the Commission should not forward the application to the City Council unless they are sure the owner wants to be on the Register. Commissioner Bauer observed that the ordinance does not have a placeholder in the process flow for someone who is undecided. Mr. Stoulil emphasized that it would be an honor to have his house listed on the Register. However, if he is unable to obtain a certificate of appropriateness to move forward with his planned addition or if his ability to obtain financing became impeded as a result of being on the Register, he may decide to withdraw the property. He is ready to place his property on the Register with the understanding that he can opt out at any time. Commissioner Waite inquired if the southern porch was added after the house was built. Mr. Stoulil answered that it is the original porch, but he enclosed it to form a mud room rather than an open porch. The footprint was not changed. COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 533 – 3RD AVENUE SOUTH (FILE HPC-09-35) MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION ON Packet Page 204 of 787 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 3 THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER ANTTILA SECONDED THE MOTION. Council Member Plunkett said he appreciates the spirit in which Mr. Stoulil brought his property forward for inclusion on the Register. He suggested this would help build the inventory, making the designation more prestigious and sought after. Vice Chair Vogel added that he is excited to see such a high level of interest come from a private property owner; this shows that historic preservation is gaining momentum. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILTY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY FOREMAN’S HOUSE LOCATED AT 1011 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS- 6) (FILE NUMBER HPC-09-100) Mr. Lien reviewed the staff report, which describes the significant features of the home. He noted that the house is situated in a residential neighborhood just south of City Park, and the neighborhood consists of a mix of homes with approximately half of the homes being constructed during the first half of the twentieth century. He referred to the designation criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing nominations and noted the application would be consistent with the following: Criteria 1 – Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s house for its personnel. It was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street. Criteria 2 – Has integrity. The building largely retains its original appearance; however, there has been a single-story rear addition that is sheltered by an extension of the back roof slope. Criteria 3 – Age at least 50 years old, or had exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The BOLA Report states the house was constructed in 1917, but the Snohomish County website indicates it was built in 1906. In either instance, the structure is more than 50 years old. Category a – Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house was originally constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House. Speculating that the arrival of the Great Northern Railroad would bring economic boom to the city of Edmonds, the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company purchased the site of the City from George Brackett for $36,000. Although the railroad arrived in 1891, the boom did not materialize and other events drove the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company into bankruptcy. George Brackett foreclosed and took back ownership of the town. Category d – Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House. Category g – Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. The house was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street. In 1958 it was moved to a site on Dayton Street where it served as a single-family residence. The house was saved when the Dayton Street site was developed because of its historic significance and moved to its current location in 1978. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission find that the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. He recommended the property be listed as proposed. Commissioner Bauer inquired if the existing siding is original, and the applicant, Donald Nicholson, answered affirmatively. Ms. Nicholson added that the house is not as beautiful as many of the other historic homes in Edmonds, but there is a great history behind it. She said she encouraged her husband to nominate the property to benefit the City of Edmonds. Packet Page 205 of 787 Packet Page 206 of 787 • Associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. The building was constructed by William A. Schumacher, who was the City Treasurer and founder of the Bank of Edmonds. He also constructed the Bank of Edmonds Building at 326 Main Street, which is also on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien reviewed the significant features of the building as listed in the Staff Report. He summarized staff’s finding that the building meets the criteria to be eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and that the exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. He recommended the Commission approve the nomination as presented. Questions were raised about the date the building was constructed. Mr. Lien said both the BOLA Report and information from the County Assessor identify the year of construction as 1900. Commissioner Waite pointed out the rooftop equipment that was added to the building by the current owner, and perhaps it should be specifically excluded. It was noted that the roof top equipment is not prominent from the street front, and the character defining aspect of the building is its western false front, which is intact. COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE SCHUMACHER BUILDING MEETS THE CRITERIA AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT FOR DESIGNATION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER VOGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Certificate of Appropriateness for Stouli Residence at 533- 3rd Avenue South (File Number PLN20090035) Mr. Lien announced that the owner of the residence at 533 – 3rd Avenue South has applied for a building permit for a rather large addition to the structure. He reviewed that when the property was placed on the Register, the owner indicated he was planning to do some additions. The Commission assured him that the property could be taken off the Register if the proposed changes do not meet the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Lien provided a diagram to illustrate the current structure and the proposed addition, which would more than double the size of the house. Staff does not believe the proposal would meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a building permit cannot be issued until the owner either obtains a Certificate of Appropriateness or the building is taken off the Register. He briefly reviewed the process for taking a property off the Register, which includes both a public meeting before the Commission and final action by the City Council. The Commission agreed that the proposed addition would alter the character and setting of the house. They discussed the option of allowing the original part of the house to remain on the Register. Mr. Lien explained that a Certificate of Appropriateness would still be required. In order to be consistent with previous Commission decisions, the Commission agreed that the structure should be removed from the Register. Commissioner Waite emphasized that the Commission is not opposed to owners making changes or additions to properties on the Register if they are done correctly. As per the criteria, alterations and additions should reflect the period in which they are done. The proposed addition would be a complete falsification of history that does nothing to enhance the property. He said he would have been pleased to support an addition that respects and compliments the patterns of the existing structure. The Commission agreed it is important to be responsive to the property owner’s request. If the process is too onerous, people will be reluctant to place their properties on the Register. COMMISSIONER VOGEL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS A PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 533 – 3RD AVENUE SOUTH FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Packet Page 207 of 787 DRAFT Subject to October 9th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING September 18, 2014 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Raetzloff called the special meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. He read the Commission’s mission statement. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Tim Raetzloff, Vice Chair Sandra Allbery Chris Deiner-Karr Larry Vogel Steve Waite COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Gerry Tays, Chair (excused) Emily Scott (excused) Lora Petso, City Council Member (excused) Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member (excused) STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Senior Planner DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO REMOVE THE RESIDENCE AT 533 – 3RD AVENUE SOUTH FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Mr. Lien recalled that when the property was placed on the Register in 2009, the property owner indicated his plans to do an addition to the structure. He questioned if it would be possible to remove the house from the Register at some point in time if he was unable to obtain a Certificate of Approval for his planned addition. The Commission assured him he would retain that ability. Minutes of the public meeting the Commission held regarding the subject property were provided in the Staff Report. Mr. Lien reported that the City recently received a building permit application for the subject property. Staff reviewed the proposal and prepared a diagram to illustrate the footprint of the existing house, as well as the proposed addition. The Commission discussed the proposal at their last meeting and expressed concern that it would not meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Because the City cannot issue a building permit for a property that is on the Register unless it gets a Certificate of Appropriateness, the property owner has requested that the property be removed from the Register. Mr. Lien referred to the memorandum in the Staff Report explaining why the property should be removed from the Register because it would no longer meet the “integrity” criteria. He briefly reviewed the seven aspects of the Department of the Interior’s Integrity Criteria, which was provided as an attachment in the Staff Report. He summarized that the structure’s design, setting, materials, workmanship and feeling would all be impacted by the proposed addition. He recommended the Commission recommend to the City Council that the property be removed from the Register. Packet Page 208 of 787 Commissioner Waite commented that the concern is not only related to the scale of the proposed addition. He is concerned that the proposal is simply a replication of what exists, which would end up falsifying the history of the building. When complete, a person would not be able to determine which parts of the building are historic and which are new. He explained that although additions and alterations are anticipated on most historic structures, design intent is a very important factor. He further explained that adopted convention in the historic preservation field is that the design of each alteration should reflect the period in which it was done. The proposed design would not accomplish that intent. The Commissioners shared examples of additions to historic structure that did not replicate the original building. Instead, they reflect the period in which they were done, yet paid homage to the original structure. This approach allows a structure’s story to be told and leaves a record of what the construction tastes and design were over time. The Commission discussed how they could be more proactive and provide guidance to property owners to help them design alterations and additions that meet the qualifications for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Doing so could result in better projects that benefit both the property owner and the City. BOARD MEMBER VOGEL MOVED THAT, PER THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 533 – 3RD AVENUE SOUTH, WHO IS CONTEMPLATING AN ADDITION TO HIS HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. BOARD MEMBER DEINER-KARR SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Lien clarified the Code does not require the property owner’s authorization to remove a property from the Register. The process can be initiated by the Historic Preservation Commission. In this case, the property owner submitted the request, and staff invited him to submit his written request for the City Council’s consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Packet Page 209 of 787 Date: September 18, 2014 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Subject: Stoulil Residence, 533 – 3rd Avenue South _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction The residence located at 533 – 3rd Avenue South was placed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2009 under Ordinance No. 3754 (Attachment 1). Once a property is placed on the Register, prior to commencing any work on a register property, the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for the proposed work. During the public hearing before the HPC, the property owner noted plans for a future addition to the house and expressed concerns that placing a property on the register may impede his ability to proceed with the planned addition. The HCP assured the property owner he would retain the ability to remove the house from the Register at any point in the future (Attachment 2). The property owner has recently submitted a building permit for the planned addition under BLD20140814 (Attachment 3). The HPC reviewed the proposed addition at the September 11, 2014 meeting and concluded the addition does not appear to meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The property owner has verbally requested the property be removed from the register. Pursuant to ECDC 20.45.030, the removal of a property from the Register follows the same procedure as placing a property on the Register. Designation Criteria In order for a property to be placed on the historic register it must be significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of the community; have integrity; be at least 50 years old, or is of lesser age and has exceptional importance; and fall into at least one the categories identified in ECDC 20.45.010.A - .F. Attachment 4 is the staff report evaluating how the subject property complied with the designation criteria at the time it was placed on the Register in 2009. Once the proposed addition is completed, the property would no longer meet the “integrity” criteria for a property on the Register. According to the Department of the Interior criteria, there MEMORANDUM Packet Page 210 of 787 are seven aspects of integrity; location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (Attachment 5). As apparent from the elevation views in Attachment 3, the proposed addition will impact the design, setting, materials, workmanship and feeling in such a way that the structure will no longer meet the integrity criteria. Recommendation Since the City of Edmonds cannot issue a building permit for a register property unless a Certificate of Appropriateness is first issued according to ECDC 20.45.050.C.1 and the property owner wishes to proceed with the proposed addition, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the City Council that the residence located at 533 – 3rd Avenue South be removed from the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Packet Page 211 of 787 AM-7181 6. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Ron Clyborne Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mayor read and present the proclamation. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/02/2014 11:39 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 212 of 787 AM-7128 7. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week ~ October 19 - 25, 2014. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative The Friends of the Library (FEL) are a community-based group of citizens who promote, encourage and enhance the work of our local library. This year they will hold their 34th annual book sale to benefit the Edmonds Library on Saturday, October 25, 2014 at the Frances Anderson Center. Attachments FEL_2014 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 09/11/2014 08:26 AM Mayor Dave Earling 09/11/2014 10:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/11/2014 11:27 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/05/2014 11:26 AM Final Approval Date: 09/11/2014 Packet Page 213 of 787 Packet Page 214 of 787 AM-7176 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmember Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Public comment and potential action on the following State Initiative: Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers. This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action January 29, 2013 Council Meeting: The Edmonds City Council added support of gun control legislation to the Edmonds City Council legislative agenda (minutes attached). Narrative The Citizens of Edmonds and the State of Washington will have an opportunity to vote on Initiative 594 in the November, 2014 general election. Initiative 594 is an act Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers; amending RCW 9.41.010, 9.41.090, 9.41.122, 9.41.124, and 82.12.040; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing penalties. Including the above language in the meeting notice ensures that we comply with RCW 42.17.555, which in relevant part, states as follows: No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities:(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body Packet Page 215 of 787 or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view. Attachments ATTACH 1 - I594 Previous Resolution ATTACH 2 - FinalText I594 ATTACH 3 - Council Minutes 1-29-13. Attach 4: I594Resolution Revised JT 10-2-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 11:03 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 11:04 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 11:08 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/02/2014 09:01 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 216 of 787 RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution Supporting Passage of Washington Initiative 594 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF INITIATIVE 594, WHICH SEEKS TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES IN THE EXISTING STATE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS SYSTEM USED TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, BY EXPANDING OUR CURRENT SYSTEM TO INCLUDE PRIVATE SALES. WHEREAS. in 1993, the US Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, requiring all federally licensed firearm dealers to perform a background check on every firearm purchaser; and WHEREAS. under current federal and state law, criminal background checks are not required for the purchase of firearms through private transactions at gun shows, over the internet, and in parking lots; and WHEREAS, the incidence of yearly gun murders has increased to over 31,000 nationally; and WHEREAS, states with required criminal background checks on private firearm sales, have been shown to have 38% fewer women murdered by intimate partners; 49% fewer suicides by gun; 39% fewer of law enforcement officers killed by handguns, and a 64% fewer crime guns trafficked to other states; and WHEREAS, Since 1998, the background check system has blocked more than 2 million sales to prohibited purchasers, including more than 40,000 in Washington State alone; and WHEREAS, 98% of Washingtonians live within 10 miles of a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer who can conduct a background check in Washington State; and WHEREAS, Initiative 594 will use the same background check system currently in use in Washington state; and WHEREAS, Initiative 594 makes no changes to Washington State hunting or shooting laws; and makes reasonable exceptions for gifts between family members, antiques and relics, temporary transfers and loans for hunting or sporting, and personal defense; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds supports policies that keep guns out of dangerous hands while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, and strongly believes that the State of Washington should take action to close the loophole in our existing background check system and keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council supports the passage of Initiative 594, which makes sure guns sold in Washington State go through the same background check system. Section 2. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to forward this Resolution to the City’s delegation to the Washington State Legislature and the Chief of Police. RESOLVED THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST: SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: Packet Page 217 of 787 Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013 _____________________________________________ BILL REQUEST - CODE REVISER'S OFFICE _____________________________________________ BILL REQ. #: I-2745.1/13 ATTY/TYPIST: AI:eab BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Packet Page 218 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 1 I-2745.1/13 Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013 AN ACT Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers; amending RCW 9.41.010, 9.41.090, 9.41.122, 9.41.124, and 82.12.040; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing penalties. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. There is broad consensus that felons, persons convicted of domestic violence crimes, and persons dangerously mentally ill as determined by a court should not be eligible to possess guns for public safety reasons. Criminal and public safety background checks are an effective and easy mechanism to ensure that guns are not purchased by or transferred to those who are prohibited from possessing them. Criminal and public safety background checks also reduce illegal gun trafficking. Because Washington's current background check requirements apply only to sales or transfers by licensed firearms dealers, many guns are sold or transferred without a Packet Page 219 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 2 I-2745.1/13 criminal and public safety background check, allowing criminals and dangerously mentally ill individuals to gain access to guns. Conducting criminal and public safety background checks will help ensure that all persons buying guns are legally eligible to do so. The people find that it is in the public interest to strengthen our background check system by extending the requirement for a background check to apply to all gun sales and transfers in the state, except as permitted herein. To encourage compliance with background check requirements, the sales tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 would not apply to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check requirements. This measure would extend criminal and public safety background checks to all gun sales or transfers. Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques. Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. (2) "Barrel length" means the distance from the bolt face of a closed action down the length of the axis of the bore to the crown of the muzzle, or in the case of a barrel with attachments to the end of any legal device permanently attached to the end of the muzzle. (3) "Crime of violence" means: (a) Any of the following felonies, as now existing or hereafter amended: Any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or an Packet Page 220 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 3 I-2745.1/13 attempt to commit a class A felony, criminal solicitation of or criminal conspiracy to commit a class A felony, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, indecent liberties if committed by forcible compulsion, kidnapping in the second degree, arson in the second degree, assault in the second degree, assault of a child in the second degree, extortion in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, residential burglary, and robbery in the second degree; (b) Any conviction for a felony offense in effect at any time prior to June 6, 1996, which is comparable to a felony classified as a crime of violence in (a) of this subsection; and (c) Any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense comparable to a felony classified as a crime of violence under (a) or (b) of this subsection. (4) "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). A person who does not have, and is not required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a), is not a dealer if that person makes only occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or part of his or her personal collection of firearms. (5) "Family or household member" means "family" or "household member" as used in RCW 10.99.020. (6) "Felony" means any felony offense under the laws of this state or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the laws of this state. (7) "Felony firearm offender" means a person who has previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state of any felony firearm offense. A person is not a felony firearm offender under this chapter if any and all qualifying offenses have been the subject of an expungement, pardon, annulment, certificate, or rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted or a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence. Packet Page 221 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 4 I-2745.1/13 (8) "Felony firearm offense" means: (a) Any felony offense that is a violation of this chapter ((9.41 RCW)); (b) A violation of RCW 9A.36.045; (c) A violation of RCW 9A.56.300; (d) A violation of RCW 9A.56.310; (e) Any felony offense if the offender was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense. (9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. (10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm. (11) "Law enforcement officer" includes a general authority Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020, or a specially commissioned Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020. "Law enforcement officer" also includes a limited authority Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020 if such officer is duly authorized by his or her employer to carry a concealed pistol. (((11))) (12) "Lawful permanent resident" has the same meaning afforded a person "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(20). (((12))) (13) "Licensed dealer" means a person who is federally licensed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). (14) "Loaded" means: (a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm; (b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm; (c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver; (d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted in the action; or (e) There is a ball in the barrel and the firearm is capped or primed if the firearm is a muzzle loader. (((13))) (15) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and Packet Page 222 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 5 I-2745.1/13 having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second. (((14))) (16) "Nonimmigrant alien" means a person defined as such in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15). (((15))) (17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity. (18) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. (((16))) (19) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. (((17))) (20) "Sale" and "sell" ((refers to)) mean the actual approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or promise of payment ((of a certain price in money)). (((18))) (21) "Serious offense" means any of the following felonies or a felony attempt to commit any of the following felonies, as now existing or hereafter amended: (a) Any crime of violence; (b) Any felony violation of the uniform controlled substances act, chapter 69.50 RCW, that is classified as a class B felony or that has a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years; (c) Child molestation in the second degree; (d) Incest when committed against a child under age fourteen; (e) Indecent liberties; (f) Leading organized crime; (g) Promoting prostitution in the first degree; (h) Rape in the third degree; (i) Drive-by shooting; (j) Sexual exploitation; Packet Page 223 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 6 I-2745.1/13 (k) Vehicular assault, when caused by the operation or driving of a vehicle by a person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or by the operation or driving of a vehicle in a reckless manner; (l) Vehicular homicide, when proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug as defined by RCW 46.61.502, or by the operation of any vehicle in a reckless manner; (m) Any other class B felony offense with a finding of sexual motivation, as "sexual motivation" is defined under RCW 9.94A.030; (n) Any other felony with a deadly weapon verdict under RCW 9.94A.825; ((or)) (o) Any felony offense in effect at any time prior to June 6, 1996, that is comparable to a serious offense, or any federal or out- of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a serious offense; or (p) Any felony conviction under section 9 of this act. (((19))) (22) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle by any means of modification if such modified weapon has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. (((20))) (23) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun by any means of modification if such modified weapon has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. (((21))) (24) "Shotgun" means a weapon with one or more barrels, designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. (25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans. Packet Page 224 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 7 I-2745.1/13 (26) "Unlicensed person" means any person who is not a licensed dealer under this chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: (1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons. (2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless: (a) The person is a licensed dealer; (b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or (c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met. (3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows: (a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted. If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer. (b) Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, the licensed dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling or transferring Packet Page 225 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 8 I-2745.1/13 the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, including but not limited to conducting a background check on the prospective purchaser or transferee in accordance with federal and state law requirements and fulfilling all federal and state recordkeeping requirements. (c) The purchaser or transferee must complete, sign, and submit all federal, state, and local forms necessary to process the required background check to the licensed dealer conducting the background check. (d) If the results of the background check indicate that the purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor. (e) The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm. (4) This section does not apply to: (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift; (b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm; (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official; Packet Page 226 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13 (e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith; (f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or (g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws. NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: Packet Page 227 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 10 I-2745.1/13 Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of: (1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal or state law; or (2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days. Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows: (1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until: (a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance; (b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or (c) The requirements or time periods in section 4 of this act have been satisfied((Five business days, meaning days on which state offices are open, have elapsed from the time of receipt of the Packet Page 228 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 11 I-2745.1/13 application for the purchase thereof as provided herein by the chief of police or sheriff designated in subsection (5) of this section, and, when delivered, the pistol shall be securely wrapped and shall be unloaded. However, if the purchaser does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the waiting period under this subsection (1)(c) shall be up to sixty days)). (2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either, shall check with the national crime information center, the Washington state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. (b) Once the system is established, a dealer shall use the state system and national instant criminal background check system, provided for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.), to make criminal background checks of applicants to purchase firearms. However, a chief of police or sheriff, or a designee of either, shall continue to check the department of social and health services' electronic database and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether applicants are ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. (3) In any case under ((subsection (1)(c) of)) this section where the applicant has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest from any court of competent jurisdiction for a felony or misdemeanor, the dealer shall hold the delivery of the pistol until the warrant for arrest is served and satisfied by appropriate court appearance. The local jurisdiction for purposes of the sale shall confirm the existence of outstanding warrants within seventy-two hours after notification of the application to purchase a pistol is received. The local jurisdiction shall also immediately confirm the satisfaction of the warrant on request of the dealer so that the hold may be released Packet Page 229 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 12 I-2745.1/13 if the warrant was for an offense other than an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol. (4) In any case where the chief or sheriff of the local jurisdiction has reasonable grounds based on the following circumstances: (a) Open criminal charges, (b) pending criminal proceedings, (c) pending commitment proceedings, (d) an outstanding warrant for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, or (e) an arrest for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, if the records of disposition have not yet been reported or entered sufficiently to determine eligibility to purchase a pistol, the local jurisdiction may hold the sale and delivery of the pistol ((beyond five days)) up to thirty days in order to confirm existing records in this state or elsewhere. After thirty days, the hold will be lifted unless an extension of the thirty days is approved by a local district court or municipal court for good cause shown. A dealer shall be notified of each hold placed on the sale by local law enforcement and of any application to the court for additional hold period to confirm records or confirm the identity of the applicant. (5) At the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol, the purchaser shall sign in triplicate and deliver to the dealer an application containing his or her full name, residential address, date and place of birth, race, and gender; the date and hour of the application; the applicant's driver's license number or state identification card number; a description of the pistol including the make, model, caliber and manufacturer's number if available at the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol. If the manufacturer's number is not available, the application may be processed, but delivery of the pistol to the purchaser may not occur unless the manufacturer's number is recorded on the application by the dealer and transmitted to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser resides; and a statement that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040. The application shall contain a warning substantially as follows: Packet Page 230 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 13 I-2745.1/13 CAUTION: Although state and local laws do not differ, federal law and state law on the possession of firearms differ. If you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you may be prosecuted in federal court. State permission to purchase a firearm is not a defense to a federal prosecution. The purchaser shall be given a copy of the department of fish and wildlife pamphlet on the legal limits of the use of firearms, firearms safety, and the fact that local laws and ordinances on firearms are preempted by state law and must be consistent with state law. The dealer shall, by the end of the business day, sign and attach his or her address and deliver a copy of the application and such other documentation as required under subsection (1) of this section to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident. The triplicate shall be retained by the dealer for six years. The dealer shall deliver the pistol to the purchaser following the period of time specified in this ((section)) chapter unless the dealer is notified of an investigative hold under subsection (4) of this section in writing by the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county, whichever is applicable, denying the purchaser's application to purchase and the grounds thereof. The application shall not be denied unless the purchaser is not eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045, or federal law. The chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county shall retain or destroy applications to purchase a pistol in accordance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922. (6) A person who knowingly makes a false statement regarding identity or eligibility requirements on the application to purchase a pistol is guilty of false swearing under RCW 9A.72.040. (7) This section does not apply to sales to licensed dealers for resale or to the sale of antique firearms. Packet Page 231 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 14 I-2745.1/13 Sec. 6. RCW 9.41.122 and 1970 ex.s. c 74 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: Residents of Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in a state other than Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in which such purchase is made: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington, including, but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter. Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.124 and 1970 ex.s. c 74 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: Residents of a state other than Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in which such persons reside: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended. In addition, the department of licensing shall report any violation of this chapter by a licensed dealer to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives within the United States department of justice and shall have the authority, after notice and a hearing, to revoke the license of any licensed dealer found to be in violation of this chapter. Packet Page 232 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 15 I-2745.1/13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating section 3 of this act is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of section 3 of this act. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of section 3 of this act. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in section 3(4) of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 82.08 RCW to read as follows: The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check requirements of chapter 9.41 RCW. Sec. 11. RCW 82.12.040 and 2011 1st sp.s. c 20 s 103 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Every person who maintains in this state a place of business or a stock of goods, or engages in business activities within this state, shall obtain from the department a certificate of registration, and shall, at the time of making sales of tangible personal property, digital goods, digital codes, digital automated services, extended warranties, or sales of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g), (3)(a), or (6)(b), or making transfers of either possession or title, or both, of tangible personal property for use in this state, collect from the purchasers or transferees the tax imposed under this chapter. The tax to be collected under this section must be in an amount equal to the purchase price multiplied by the rate in effect for the retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.020. For Packet Page 233 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 16 I-2745.1/13 the purposes of this chapter, the phrase "maintains in this state a place of business" shall include the solicitation of sales and/or taking of orders by sales agents or traveling representatives. For the purposes of this chapter, "engages in business activity within this state" includes every activity which is sufficient under the Constitution of the United States for this state to require collection of tax under this chapter. The department must in rules specify activities which constitute engaging in business activity within this state, and must keep the rules current with future court interpretations of the Constitution of the United States. (2) Every person who engages in this state in the business of acting as an independent selling agent for persons who do not hold a valid certificate of registration, and who receives compensation by reason of sales of tangible personal property, digital goods, digital codes, digital automated services, extended warranties, or sales of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g), (3)(a), or (6)(b), of his or her principals for use in this state, must, at the time such sales are made, collect from the purchasers the tax imposed on the purchase price under this chapter, and for that purpose is deemed a retailer as defined in this chapter. (3) The tax required to be collected by this chapter is deemed to be held in trust by the retailer until paid to the department, and any retailer who appropriates or converts the tax collected to the retailer's own use or to any use other than the payment of the tax provided herein to the extent that the money required to be collected is not available for payment on the due date as prescribed is guilty of a misdemeanor. In case any seller fails to collect the tax herein imposed or having collected the tax, fails to pay the same to the department in the manner prescribed, whether such failure is the result of the seller's own acts or the result of acts or conditions beyond the seller's control, the seller is nevertheless personally liable to the state for the amount of such tax, unless the seller has taken from the buyer a copy of a direct pay permit issued under RCW 82.32.087. Packet Page 234 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 17 I-2745.1/13 (4) Any retailer who refunds, remits, or rebates to a purchaser, or transferee, either directly or indirectly, and by whatever means, all or any part of the tax levied by this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section, any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter if: (a) The person's activities in this state, whether conducted directly or through another person, are limited to: (i) The storage, dissemination, or display of advertising; (ii) The taking of orders; or (iii) The processing of payments; and (b) The activities are conducted electronically via a web site on a server or other computer equipment located in Washington that is not owned or operated by the person making sales into this state nor owned or operated by an affiliated person. "Affiliated persons" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.04.424. (6) Subsection (5) of this section expires when: (a) The United States congress grants individual states the authority to impose sales and use tax collection duties on remote sellers; or (b) it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in a judgment not subject to review, that a state can impose sales and use tax collection duties on remote sellers. (7) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section, any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter if the person would have been obligated to collect retail sales tax on the sale absent a specific exemption provided in chapter 82.08 RCW, and there is no corresponding use tax exemption in this chapter. Nothing in this subsection (7) may be construed as relieving purchasers from liability for reporting and remitting the tax due under this chapter directly to the department. (8) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section, any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter if the state is prohibited under the Constitution or laws Packet Page 235 of 787 Code Rev/AI:eab 18 I-2745.1/13 of the United States from requiring the person to collect the tax imposed by this chapter. (9) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section, any licensed dealer facilitating a firearm sale or transfer between two unlicensed persons by conducting background checks under chapter 9.41 RCW is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. Packet Page 236 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 29, 2013 Page 23 Mayor Earling: Six to one, then. Okay, we’ll take that up again. We then have, next on our agenda, Audience Comments. (Councilmember Bloom left the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m.) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Kevin Morrison, Edmonds, commented following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the federal and state government talking about gun control issue, he was concerned the City may take action to affect the rights of citizens. He commented the Second Amendment is not about being able to hunt or have a six shooter to protect one’s home; the Second Amendment was put in place due to a tyrannical king and to give citizens the ability to protect themselves from the government. If the City is considering gun control legislation, he urged the Council to hold a public hearing to allow citizens to provide input. With regard to high capacity magazines, he relayed a story where a woman had to shoot more than seven times to protect herself and child from an armed intruder. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his suggestion to develop a taxpayer alternate plan for Harbor Square, suggesting the Port could sell pieces of Harbor Square as private enterprises such as the hotel and athletic club. Selling the property in pieces would also allow development to occur sooner and had heard of people interested in buying the buildings. Next, he suggested the Council retreat include discussion regarding moving the ferry terminal to the Unocal property. He recalled in 1989 the Council decided not to allow a second slip, dock expansion, overhead loading or commercial facilities at the existing location. As Mayor Earling has demonstrated the ability to obtain funds for a tunnel, he should be able to lobby the state and other agencies for funds for the ferry dock and over-track loading. Once the ferry was relocated, tourist busses could park in the ferry holding lanes, the dock could be reused for cruise and tourist boats, and the remaining space could be used for other activities such as a year-round market. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on training provided by the school district regarding emergency rescue. He suggested the City have similar training. 7. CONSIDERATION OF ADDING SUPPORT OF GUN CONTROL TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Councilmember Peterson explained every year the Council approves a legislative agenda identifying issues the Council wants elected officials to support/endorse. The Council passed the original 2013 legislative agenda on December 4, 2013. In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, and other shootings across the United States, he requested the Council approve the addition of the following language to its 2013 legislative agenda: “The Edmonds City Council supports legislation in favor of gun safety laws and regulations that reduce violence and result in safe, responsible gun ownership, including: a ban on all assault weapons; a ban on large capacity (greater than 10) ammunition magazines; universal background checks, including at gun shows; trigger locks and safe storage requirements; and micro-stamping technology in all firearms sold, purchased or delivered in the State to improve the capability of police to trace fired bullets.” He was unaware if any legislation that has been introduced. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE 2013 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, “THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTS LEGISLATION IN FAVOR OF GUN SAFETY LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT REDUCE VIOLENCE AND RESULT IN SAFE, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING: A BAN ON ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS; A BAN ON LARGE CAPACITY (GREATER THAN 10) AMMUNITION MAGAZINES; UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, INCLUDING AT GUN SHOWS; TRIGGER LOCKS AND SAFE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS; AND MICRO-STAMPING TECHNOLOGY IN ALL FIREARMS Packet Page 237 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 29, 2013 Page 24 SOLD, PURCHASED OR DELIVERED IN THE STATE TO IMPROVE THE CAPABILITY OF POLICE TO TRACE FIRED BULLETS.” Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised there is a bill in the House and Senate regarding a safe environment for weapons. She suggested adding an item to the legislative agenda, “Edmonds commits to supporting efforts to reduce gun violence by supporting a strong mental health system which includes prevention and early intervention services.” She explained it has been determined that as mental health services are cut, the lack of services attributes to some of the violence.” She agreed to add this as a separate amendment to the legislative agenda. Council President Petso advised although she was sympathetic to the cause, she would abstain as she had not had an opportunity to talk with many people about it. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-2), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO ADD TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT EDMONDS COMMITS TO SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE BY SUPPORTING A STRONG MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM WHICH INCLUDES PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES. Council President Petso advised she would abstain from the vote. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) 8. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling relayed there was no action as a result of meeting in executive session. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers had no reports. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Packet Page 238 of 787 Resolution Supporting Passage of Washington Initiative 594No. ____ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Edmonds supporting the passage of Initiative 594, the title of which states: “Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers. This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ]” Noseeks to close the loopholes in the existing state criminal background checks system used to purchase a firearm, by expanding our current system to include private sales. Whereas, in 1993, the US Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, requiring all federally licensed firearm dealers to perform a background check on every firearm purchaser; and Whereas, under current federal and state law, criminal background checks are not required for the purchase of firearms through private transactions at gun shows, over the internet, and in parking lots; and Whereas, the incidence of yearly gun murders has increased to over 31,000 nationally; and Whereas, states with required criminal background checks on private firearm sales, have been shown to have 38% fewer women murdered by intimate partners; 49% fewer suicides by gun; 39% fewer of law enforcement officers killed by handguns, and a 64% fewer crime guns trafficked to other states; and Whereas, Since 1998, the background check system has blocked more than 2 million sales to prohibited purchasers, including more than 40,000 in Washington State alone; and Whereas, 98% of Washingtonians live within 10 miles of a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer who can conduct a background check in Washington State; and Whereas, Initiative 594 will use the same background check system currently in use in Washington state; and Whereas, Initiative 594 makes no changes to Washington state hunting or shooting laws; and makes reasonable exceptions for gifts between family members, antiques and relics, temporary transfers and loans for hunting or sporting, and personal defense; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Edmonds supports policies that keep guns out of dangerous hands while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, and strongly believes that the State of Washington should take action to close the loophole in our existing background check system and keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council supports the passage of Initiative 594, which makes sure guns sold in Washington State go through the same background check system. Section 2. the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to forward this resolution to the City’s delegation to the Washington State Legislature and the Chief of Police. PASSED by the City Council this _________ day of _______________, 2014 APPROVED by the Mayor this _________ day of _______________, 2014 By: ________________________________________________, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: By: ________________________________________________, City Clerk FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: _________________________________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: _________________________________ RESOLUTION NO. ________________________ Packet Page 239 of 787 AM-7171 11. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:60 Minutes Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Public Hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve: 1) An Amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone and related design standards; and 2) An Amendment to the Zoning Map changing the BN, BC and BC-EW zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone designation. The Westgate Commercial Area consists of the BN, BC and BC-EW Zones near the intersection of SR-104 (Edmonds Way) and 100th Ave W. Recommendation Hold the public hearing and identify next steps in concluding the Westgate process. Previous Council Action The City Council referred development of the Westgate proposal to the Planning Board during its June 21, 2011, meeting (see Exhibit 13). The Council also had a presentation on the plan and code proposals in July, 2013. The Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendations on August 4, 2014, and followed up the hearing with work sessions on August 26 and September 23, 2014. Prior meetings also included a briefing on the Planning Board's recommendations on July 22, 2014. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendations on the proposed amendments that would implement the Westgate plan and code proposals. The Board held a total of three public hearings during its consideration of the plan and zoning code for the Westgate commercial center; the study area is shown in the vicinity map in Exhibit 5, along with maps showing existing zoning and topography. The draft of the plan and zoning code amendments being considered by the Planning Board are included in Attachments 1 through 3. Note that there are two specific actions related to zoning that were recommended by the Planning Board intended to implement the Westgate development plan: 1) An amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use zone and related design standards; and, 2) An amendment to the Zoning Map changing The BN, BC and BC-EW Zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use zone designation. The planning and code process for Westgate was initiated by the Edmonds City Council at the request of the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington. Students from the undergraduate Community, Environment, and Planning program began work in October 2010 to collect data on the use and configuration of each commercial area. A new team of graduate students in urban planning, landscape architecture and architecture continued that work to develop the Special District plans. The first public meetings (termed “listening sessions”) took place in January 2011 (Exhibit 13). On March 12, 2011, the City held a design workshop (or charrette) to engage the public, business and property owners, and the local design community in exploring more specific design options for the two sites. In late April, 2011, public meetings presented results of this effort, and a June 2011 presentation was made to the City Council (Exhibit 12). In addition to the public meetings and workshops, the project included presentations to City officials, research on form-based codes, production of final conceptual designs, and preparation of a report with recommendations for implementation. The Council formally referred the Westgate proposals to the Planning Board on June 21, 2011 (see Exhibits 11 and 12). Planning Board review of the Westgate plan and form-based code began in 2012. Since then, there have been a number of meetings and public presentations, including an additional City Council presentation on July 23, 2013 (Attachments 8 and 9), and two Planning Board public hearings on September 12, 2012, March 14, 2014, and finally on May 28, 2014. The draft plan and code considered at the first hearing (September 2012) is included in Attachment 10, and is essentially what the UW team recommended at the conclusion of its work. Additional material on the project is extensive, and can be found online by visiting: http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/planning-plans-fivecorners-article.html With this long project history, and the substantial review that has followed, there have, of course, been changes from what the original UW team proposed. Some significant changes include several key items: 1. The overall plan provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring buildings be pushed up to sidewalk lines. Nonetheless, open space and amenity space is still required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. The general emphasis of the plan has changed from buildings organized around the SR-104/100th Ave W intersection to a quadrant-based system which focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection. 2. Instead of allowing development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now capped at between 2 and 4 stories, depending mainly on topography and nearby uses.. 3. Street setbacks have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. 4. The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. This is reinforced by the discussion of the intersection in section "D" on page 38 of the draft code (Exhibit 1). 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes" (see Exhibit 1, page 36). This is attempting to provide greater definition to Packet Page 240 of 787 11. City Council Meeting Planning Information Information Subject Title Public Hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve: 1) An Amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone and related design standards; and 2) An Amendment to the Zoning Map changing the BN, BC and BC-EW zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use Zone designation. The Westgate Commercial Area consists of the BN, BC and BC-EW Zones near the intersection of SR-104 (Edmonds Way) and 100th Ave W. Recommendation Hold the public hearing and identify next steps in concluding the Westgate process. Previous Council Action The City Council referred development of the Westgate proposal to the Planning Board during its June 21, 2011, meeting (see Exhibit 13). The Council also had a presentation on the plan and code proposals in July, 2013. The Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendations on August 4, 2014, and followed up the hearing with work sessions on August 26 and September 23, 2014. Prior meetings also included a briefing on the Planning Board's recommendations on July 22, 2014. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendations on the proposed amendments that would implement the Westgate plan and code proposals. The Board held a total of three public hearings during its consideration of the plan and zoning code for the Westgate commercial center; the study area is shown in the vicinity map in Exhibit 5, along with maps showing existing zoning and topography. The draft of the plan and zoning code amendments being considered by the Planning Board are included in Attachments 1 through 3. Note that there are two specific actions related to zoning that were recommended by the Planning Board intended to implement the Westgate development plan: 1) An amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use zone and related design standards; and, 2) An amendment to the Zoning Map changing The BN, BC and BC-EW Zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use zone designation. The planning and code process for Westgate was initiated by the Edmonds City Council at the request of the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington. Students from the undergraduate Community, Environment, and Planning program began work in October 2010 to collect data on the use and configuration of each commercial area. A new team of graduate students in urban planning, landscape architecture and architecture continued that work to develop the Special District plans. The first public meetings (termed “listening sessions”) took place in January 2011 (Exhibit 13). On March 12, 2011, the City held a design workshop (or charrette) to engage the public, business and property owners, and the local design community in exploring more specific design options for the two sites. In late April, 2011, public meetings presented results of this effort, and a June 2011 presentation was made to the City Council (Exhibit 12). In addition to the public meetings and workshops, the project included presentations to City officials, research on form-based codes, production of final conceptual designs, and preparation of a report with recommendations for implementation. The Council formally referred the Westgate proposals to the Planning Board on June 21, 2011 (see Exhibits 11 and 12). Planning Board review of the Westgate plan and form-based code began in 2012. Since then, there have been a number of meetings and public presentations, including an additional City Council presentation on July 23, 2013 (Attachments 8 and 9), and two Planning Board public hearings on September 12, 2012, March 14, 2014, and finally on May 28, 2014. The draft plan and code considered at the first hearing (September 2012) is included in Attachment 10, and is essentially what the UW team recommended at the conclusion of its work. Additional material on the project is extensive, and can be found online by visiting: http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/planning-plans-fivecorners-article.html With this long project history, and the substantial review that has followed, there have, of course, been changes from what the original UW team proposed. Some significant changes include several key items: 1. The overall plan provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring buildings be pushed up to sidewalk lines. Nonetheless, open space and amenity space is still required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. The general emphasis of the plan has changed from buildings organized around the SR-104/100th Ave W intersection to a quadrant-based system which focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection. 2. Instead of allowing development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now capped at between 2 and 4 stories, depending mainly on topography and nearby uses.. 3. Street setbacks have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. 4. The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. This is reinforced by the discussion of the intersection in section "D" on page 38 of the draft code (Exhibit 1). 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes" (see Exhibit 1, page 36). This is attempting to provide greater definition to Packet Page 241 of 787 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes" (see Exhibit 1, page 36). This is attempting to provide greater definition to what has been a feature of the Westgate code: an intent to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential area. The map provides a specific line, mainly tied to topography, that would define the limit of the developed area within the commercially zoned properties of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Development activity (such as clearing, grading, or retaining walls) can't intrude into the slopes beyond this line. A transportation analysis, looking at potential traffic impacts if development occurred according to the plan, was completed in 2013. The study concluded that traffic level of service would not be degraded (see Attachment 6). Since this study was done when buildings were being allowed at up to five stories, the current plan capping heights at 2-to-4 stories reduces traffic impacts even further, since the overall level of development is substantially reduced by 18 to 20% (see Attachment 14). Since the most recent Council work session on September 23rd, materials in Exhibits 19-21 have been distributed. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed Westgate Code Amendments - current draft. Exhibit 2: Green Factor Tools - "Exhibit A" to code Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Recent Council minutes (August and September 2014). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Exhibit 16: Additional public comments received. Exhibit 17: Economic Development Commission White Paper. Exhibit 18: EDC Minutes. Exhibit 19: Westgate Q&A and responses from staff Exhibit 20: Sample property calculations (McDonald's) Exhibit 21: Bartell's comment letter Attachments Exhibit 1: Westgate Code Amendments - current draft Exhibit 2: Green Factor Tools - "Exhibit A" Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Recent Council Minutes Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Exhibit 16: Additional public comments Exhibit 17: Economic Development Commission White Paper Exhibit 18: CEDC Minutes Exhibit 19: Q&A provided to Council Exhibit 20: Sample property calculations (McDonald's) Exhibit 21: Bartell's comment letter Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 04:18 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 05:31 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/03/2014 08:00 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/01/2014 03:32 PM Final Approval Date: 10/03/2014 Packet Page 242 of 787 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes" (see Exhibit 1, page 36). This is attempting to provide greater definition to what has been a feature of the Westgate code: an intent to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential area. The map provides a specific line, mainly tied to topography, that would define the limit of the developed area within the commercially zoned properties of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Development activity (such as clearing, grading, or retaining walls) can't intrude into the slopes beyond this line. A transportation analysis, looking at potential traffic impacts if development occurred according to the plan, was completed in 2013. The study concluded that traffic level of service would not be degraded (see Attachment 6). Since this study was done when buildings were being allowed at up to five stories, the current plan capping heights at 2-to-4 stories reduces traffic impacts even further, since the overall level of development is substantially reduced by 18 to 20% (see Attachment 14). Since the most recent Council work session on September 23rd, materials in Exhibits 19-21 have been distributed. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed Westgate Code Amendments - current draft. Exhibit 2: Green Factor Tools - "Exhibit A" to code Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Recent Council minutes (August and September 2014). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Exhibit 16: Additional public comments received. Exhibit 17: Economic Development Commission White Paper. Exhibit 18: EDC Minutes. Exhibit 19: Westgate Q&A and responses from staff Exhibit 20: Sample property calculations (McDonald's) Exhibit 21: Bartell's comment letter Attachments Exhibit 1: Westgate Code Amendments - current draft Exhibit 2: Green Factor Tools - "Exhibit A" Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Recent Council Minutes Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Exhibit 16: Additional public comments Exhibit 17: Economic Development Commission White Paper Exhibit 18: CEDC Minutes Exhibit 19: Q&A provided to Council Exhibit 20: Sample property calculations (McDonald's) Exhibit 21: Bartell's comment letter Form Review Date 10/02/2014 04:18 PM 10/02/2014 05:31 PM 10/03/2014 08:00 AM Started On: 10/01/2014 03:32 PM Final Approval Date: 10/03/2014 Packet Page 243 of 787 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 244 of 787 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 245 of 787 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 246 of 787 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 Site development standards. 6 A. Building and site development standards are further specified in chapter 22.110 ECDC. B. Building setback along external streets. A building setback is required as follows: 8 12 feet from 100th Avenue W 12 feet from SR-104 10 C. Setbacks and Screening from P- or R-zoned property. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from adjacent P- or R-zoned properties. The required setback from P- or 12 R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the WMU lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, 14 wall or solid hedge running the length of the setback shall be provided within the setback area. 16 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 18 zone are: 1. 1 space for every 500 square feet of leasable commercial space. 20 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. 22 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. 24 E. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. 16.110.030 26 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed 28 building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks and uses associated with amenity and open spaces such as 30 outdoor dining or recreation uses; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 32 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 34 5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 36 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of chapter 38 4.12 ECC. 40 B. NuisancesProperty Performance Standards. All uses shall comply with chapter 17.60 ECDC, Property Performance Standards. 42 Packet Page 247 of 787 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: • Protecting steep slopes is a key concept; 20 • Designing a landscape emphasis for the primary intersection; • Creating a lively pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks and requirements for 22 buildings to be placed close to the sidewalk; • Landscaping the plazas, open spaces, and parking areas with required landscaped open 24 space; • Promoting a sustainable low-impact development with a requirement for bioswales, rain 26 gardens, green roofs and other features to retain and infiltrate storm water; • Providing workforce housing and increasing residential uses including small-sized 28 dwelling units; • Providing options for non-motorized transportation linking new bike lanes into the city’s 30 larger system of bike lanes and extending sidewalks and pedestrian paths into the surrounding residential areas. 32 22.110.010 Building Types. 34 A. Properties in the Westgate District have varying height limits depending on location and topography as identified in ECDC 22.110.010.B and ECDC 22.110.090. Seven Building 36 Types are allowed in the Westgate District, as listed below: 1. Rowhouse – A series of two or more attached townhome apartments or condominiums 38 with entrances facing the street or public way. Packet Page 248 of 787 2. Courtyard - A cluster of apartment or condominium flats arranged to share one or more common courtyards. 2 3. Stacked Dwelling – A primarily residential building with the building massing predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of residential units and which 4 may include ancillary commercial uses (such as exercise or health facilities or convenience shopping or services) on the ground level. 6 4. Live-Work - An integrated residential and working space designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. 8 5. Loft Mixed-Use - A building that has vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and elevator access, with greater height per floor on one or more floors to 10 accommodate additional loft area within a unit. 6. Side Court Mixed-Use – A building with retail or service uses located on the ground 12 floor and office or residential uses above and including a side courtyard adjacent to the public realm. 14 7. Commercial Mixed-Use – A mixed-use building with retail and/or service uses on at least the ground floor, with additional commercial or residential uses above. 16 B. Building Height. Building heights are described in terms of stories. Regardless of the 18 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 20 buildings with four stories. Buildings may only include a fourth story if the building meets the criteria contained in section ECDC 22.110.090. Notwithstanding other methods of calculating 22 height elsewhere in the city, Building building height in the Westgate Mixed Use zone is established by the finished grade at the street front, so that buildings may not use adjoining 24 slopes to increase the average height of the building above the street front level. The following diagramFigure 22.110.010.B illustrates building height limits and step back 26 requirements for buildings in the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Unless otherwise specified, the height limit is three stories or 35 feet. 28 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 30 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 exceeds 10 feet, up 32 to a 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 feet 34 above the maximum height otherwise allowed by this subsection. Upon qualifying for the added A building that has taken advantage of this additional height, may not have its the retail 36 space may not be subdivided below the 15,000 square foot minimum at any time during the building’s lifetime. 38 Packet Page 249 of 787 Figure 22.110.010.B Building Height Limits and Step-back Requirements 2 C. Building Locations. Setbacks established in section ECDC 16.110.020 describe the 4 minimum distances buildings must be placed from the SR-104 and 100th Avenue W rights-of- way. In general, buildings shall be located at or within 10 feet of the setback line so that the 6 buildings can relate to each other, not stand in isolation, and help to define the adjoining open space and amenity spaces that will surround them. However, eExceptions may be granted as 8 part of the design review process when it can be demonstrated that the proposed building development will achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by 10 allowing such an exception while also fitting into anin light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking is shall not be located so as to separate 12 between the building and from the public street. D. Building Type Descriptions. The following describe the different building types and 14 include diagrams indicating where each building type is allowed. Note that where descriptions and standards refer to “street” this is intended to refer to either an external street or an internal 16 street or drive which provides secondary vehicular and pedestrian access within the overall development(s). 18 Each building type is allowed only within specified locations within the Westgate districtMixed Use zone, as shown in the following Building Type Location DiagramFigure 20 22.110.010.D. Allowed uses per floor are specified in Table 22.110.010.D. Most properties have an option for more than one building type. Multiple buildings are allowed per site, so 22 long as each building conforms with the building type locations specified in Figure 22.110.010.D. 24 Packet Page 250 of 787 Figure 22.110.010.D Building Type Locations 2 4 Packet Page 251 of 787 Table 22.110.010.D Table of general allowed uses by floor for each building type. 2 Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only Live-Work Not ground floor1 Ground floor only Ground floor only Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor1 Any floor Any floor Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor1 Any floor Ground floor only Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor1 Not ground floor Any floor 1 “Not ground floor” means the use may locate on any floor other than the ground floor of a building. 4 Packet Page 252 of 787 1. Rowhouse 2 Rowhouse type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. A series of two or more attached dwellings with zero side yard setbacks located on a 8 qualifying lot in the Westgate District as shown in the Building Type Location DiagramFigure 22.110.010.D. 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 section 22.110.070 20 ECDC. Usable outdoor amenity space shall be provided in conjunction with and related to Packet Page 253 of 787 the dwelling units at no less than 15% of the lot area devoted to residential uses. The outdoor space shall be of a regular geometry so that the space is usable for recreational or leisure use. 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 • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. 8 • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not count toward more than 50% of the required open space. 10 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 12 Landscape. Landscape may be used to separate a front yard from the front yards of adjacent units or 14 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 16 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 18 dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 20 Building Design and Massing. Buildings on corner properties adjacent to streets shall be designed with a main façade and 22 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 24 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 26 dwelling that is accessed from the street and faces the street, or residential flats that each have a street entry. 28 Rowhouse buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 30 22.110.015. 32 34 Packet Page 254 of 787 2. Courtyard 2 Courtyard type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. A cluster of dwelling units arranged in one or more buildings to share one or more common 8 courtyards. The individual units may be any combination of rowhouses or flats or stacked flats. The courtyard is private space that is adjacent to the public realm and may provide 10 access to tuck-under parking. Courtyard building types may house ground floor commercial/flex uses. 12 Access • The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off a common courtyard or 14 directly from a street. Access to commercial uses shall be directly from a street. • Access to second-story units may be through an open or open roofed stair. 16 • Parking shall be accessed through an alley or interior street if present. Amenity Space. 18 Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in section ECDC 22.110.070. Sites shall be designed to provide usable amenity space with a total area of not 20 less than 15% of the lot. A central courtyard and / or multiple separated or interconnected courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plazas and courtyards may be included in the cumulative 22 Packet Page 255 of 787 total area only if they are accessible to the public. In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below: 2 • 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. 4 • 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. 6 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 8 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 10 • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. 12 • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not count toward more than 50% of the required open space. 14 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 16 • 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 18 shall be at least 10 feet wide. Landscape. 20 Landscape shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcellots. Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s 22 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 24 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 26 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Building Design and Massing. 28 • 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, 30 rear yard or alley. • No exterior arcade shall encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 32 • Stoops up to 3 feet in height may be placed above below grade parking. Building size and massing. 34 • Buildings shall be composed of flats and rowhouses alone or in combination. • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 36 • 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-38 scale 30-foot-wide individual residential masses. • The building is not required to appear to be one building. 40 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 42 section ECDC 22.110.015. 44 Packet Page 256 of 787 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 section ECDC 22.110.070. The primary shared open space is the rear yard, which shall be designed as a 18 courtyard. The 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 257 of 787 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. • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas 18 covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not 20 count toward more than 50% of the required open space. • The primary shared open space is the rear yard, which shall be designed as a courtyard. 22 The 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.• Private open space is allowed in 24 courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 26 Landscape. Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent 28 parcellots. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 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. Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of 32 planters and hardscape landscaping. Building Design and Massing. 34 Buildings shall be composed of flats, lofts, and rowhouses alone or in combination. • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 36 • Buildings shall be composed of individual masses that are intended to break up the building into identifiable housing units rather than large undifferentiated blocks. The building 38 is not required to appear to be one building. Stacked dwelling buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground 40 Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015. 42 44 Packet Page 258 of 787 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 Building Type Location DiagramFigure 22.110.010.D. 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 259 of 787 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 section ECDC 8 22.110.070. Front Yards are defined by the street and frontage type requirements of the zone. One usable outdoorAmenity space shall be provided behind the live-work at no less than 10 15% of the 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. 12 Alternatively, 50% of the usable open spaceamenity space may be provided at the front of the lot. 14 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 16 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 18 • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. 20 • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not count toward more than 50% of the required open space. 22 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 24 Landscape Landscape shall not obscure the storefront of the ground floor flex/work space. 26 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 28 Frontage • Commercial/work/flex space and living areas shall be oriented toward the fronting street 30 or sidewalk. Service rooms should be oriented towards the side and rear yards. • Commercial/work/flex spaces shall conform to Shopfront Frontage Type Standards (see 32 ECDC 22.110.020). • Buildings on corner lots may provide an appropriate frontage type on each street front. 34 Building Design and Massing Live-work units may be designed as individual buildings composed of 2- and/or 3-story 36 volumes or included in larger buildings in compliance with the applicable building type requirements. 38 Live-Work buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 40 22.110.015. 42 44 Packet Page 260 of 787 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. These buildings have greater height on at least one floor to accommodate additional floor loft area within a unit. These 10 buildings may be used for residential, office, and commercial uses, except that residential units may not be located on the ground floor. 12 Access • The primary entrance to each unit may be accessed be through a street level or elevated 14 lobby accessible from the street. • The entry to each ground floor unit may be through an elevator/stair corridor. 16 • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. • Access to upper level loft areas is via an internal stair. 18 Packet Page 261 of 787 Amenity space. Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in section ECDC 2 22.110.070. Open Space 4 • 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 6 space. • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas 8 covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not 10 count toward more than 50% of the required open space. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 12 • The primary shared open space is the rear yard. The yard may be designed for ground installation or for the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck. Side yards are 14 allowed for common use gardens. In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the 16 patterns below: • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is 18 oriented East/West and a minimum 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the 20 applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 22 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courtyards, balconies and roof decks. • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. 24 • Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total open space area. 26 • No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. Landscape 28 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from front yards on adjacent parcellots. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 30 Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to provide a combination of integrated landscaping and seating/active circulation areas. 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. Lofts may be provided as part of commercial or residential units, but must be provided on 36 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 38 scale. • The main volume may be flanked by a secondary volume. 40 Loft 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 section ECDC 22.110.015. 44 Packet Page 262 of 787 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 shall house ground floor commercial spaces with office or dwelling units above. Side court buildings may 12 be located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Building Type Location DiagramFigure 22.110.010.D. 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 Packet Page 263 of 787 • 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) shall be oriented toward the courtyard and/or exterior street or sidewalk. Service rooms may be oriented toward 4 the side-yard, rear yard or alley. Amenity space. 6 Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in section ECDC 22.110.070. Courtyard buildings shall be designed to provide a side courtyard and or multiple 8 separated or 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 10 width of the side 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 • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. 26 • A roof deck or green roof may only count as open space if is accessible, and may not count toward more than 50% of the required open space. 28 • Private open space is allowed in courts, balconies and roof decks. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 30 Landscape Landscape shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent 32 parcellots. 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 34 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). 36 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 38 Building Design and Massing • The building elevation abutting an inactive side yard shall be designed to provide at least 40 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 42 features without the use of blank walls. • Units within the buildings may be flats and/or townhouses. 44 Packet Page 264 of 787 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 2 Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015. Packet Page 265 of 787 7. Commercial Mixed-Use 2 Commercial Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Commercial Mixed Use buildings are designed for retail and service uses on the ground 8 floor, with upper floors configured for dwelling units or commercial uses. The buildings are predicated on vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator 10 access. These buildings are located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Building Type Location DiagramFigure 22.110.010.D. 12 Access • The primary entrance to each building shall be accessed through a street level lobby or 14 elevated lobby accessible from the street or sidewalk. • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. 16 • The entry to each ground floor commercial space shall be directly from and face the street or sidewalk. 18 Packet Page 266 of 787 Amenity space. Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in section ECDC 2 22.110.070. Shared amenity space may include the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck as long as the amenity space is within six feet of finished grade. Side yards or 4 courts are allowed for common use gardens. In a project with multiple amenity space areas at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below: 6 • Optimal 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 oriented 8 North/South. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the 10 applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 12 Open Space • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Additional amenity space 14 provided in excess of the 15% minimum amenity space requirement may also count as open space. 16 • Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. A roof deck or green roof may only be 18 counted as open space if it is accessible. • Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 20 • Side yards or courts are allowed for common use gardens. • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courts, balconies and roof decks. 22 • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. • Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plazas and courtyards may be included in the 24 cumulative total open space area. Landscape 26 Private landscaping is required. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 28 Open space areas located over below-grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of planters and hardscape landscaping. In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed 30 through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 32 Building Design and Massing Buildings shall be composed of office, retail, flats, or lofts alone or above commercial 34 space on the ground level. Units may be repetitive or unique in design. • The main volume may be flanked by one or more secondary volumes. 36 • Large floor plate retail such as grocery stores, drug stores, nurseries, and exercise gyms are encouraged and are allowed on the first or second floors of a mixed-use building. 38 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 40 Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015. 42 Packet Page 267 of 787 22.110.015 Design Treatments A. Purpose 2 This Section describes building design features that are referenced as being required in the building types described in section ECDC 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 an height elevation of 7” from 30 the adjoining sidewalk. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and shall be given a 32 visually 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 Packet Page 268 of 787 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, but that 18 is of a similar character and 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 ground floor façade that lies 24 between an 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 26 and interior. 28 5. Treating Blank Walls Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls. Walls or portions 30 of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment. At least five of the following elements shall be 32 incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing facade: a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block); 34 b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; c. Belt courses of a different texture and color; 36 d. Projecting cornice; e. Decorative tile work; 38 f. Medallions; g. Opaque or translucent glass; 40 h. Artwork or wall graphics; i. Lighting fixtures; 42 j. Green walls; k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. 44 Packet Page 269 of 787 22.110.020 Frontage Types. 2 A. Purpose This Section defines how the buildings within the Westgate Mixed Use zone relate to the 4 public realm of the 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 6 building to relate to the public realm in ways that are attractive, inviting, and accessible to all. B. 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 Packet Page 270 of 787 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 22.110.025 Frontage Improvements. When a new building or building addition of at least 500 square feet is being developed on 44 any property adjacent to 100th Street SW or SR 104, sidewalks and adjacent planting buffers along the property’s entire street frontage are required to be in conformance with this section. 46 Required improvements shall be at the expense of the property owner or his/her agent. A. The total planting buffer and sidewalk width, as measured from back of street curb, 48 shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet. This shall be comprised of a planting buffer five (5) feet wide immediately behind the street curb and a sidewalk at least seven (7) feet wide 50 adjacent to the planting buffer, except as otherwise provided in subsection B or C of this Packet Page 271 of 787 section. The sidewalk may be fully within the public right of way or partly on private property. For sidewalks located on private property, an easement or dedication of right-of-2 way shall be given to the City. B. Within the general area of the intersection of 100th Street SW and SR 104, the 4 sidewalk and any planting buffer shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide, measured from back of curb. The sidewalk may also be required by the City Engineer to be greater than 6 seven (7) feet to accommodate any needed additional width for bulb-outs or other features improving safety or accessibility for pedestrians at the intersection. Where the required 8 sidewalk width within the general intersection area is greater than seven (7) feet, the City Engineer may allow the planting buffer to be reduced or excluded to accommodate pedestrian 10 movements at the intersection. C. The width of any required planting buffer shall be continued along the property’s 12 entire street frontage, except that no planting is required across an approved driveway access and, where approved by the city engineer to accommodate a bus pull-out lane, planting may 14 be reduced or eliminated if such planting would require the seven (7)-foot sidewalk to extend further outside of the right of way than otherwise would be the case. 16 D. The planting buffer shall be the location for vegetation and street trees. It may also be the location of street lights, utility equipment, signage, low impact stormwater facilities , and 18 other structures or uses typical along streets, as approved by the city. 22.110.030 Green Building Construction and Housing. 20 A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to encourage the development of a variety of housing choices 22 available to residents of all economic segments and to encourage sustainable development through the use of development standards, requirements and incentives. 24 B. Green Building and Site Design Criteria All development in the Westgate District shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED 26 Certified rating or equivalent as a requirement and shall meet a minimum Green Factor Score of 0.3. 28 C. Sustainable site design. All development shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED Certified standards, or an 30 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 32 required of all developments (see ECDC 22.110.070). Pervious surfaces shall be integrated into site design and may include: pervious pavement, 34 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 36 required. Runoff generated on–site shall be routed through a treatment system such as a structured 38 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 ECDC of 40 the City of Edmonds Municipal Code. 42 D. Housing. To promote a balance in age demographics and encourage age diversity, the City of 44 Edmonds is actively encouraging a greater number of dwelling units targeting young Packet Page 272 of 787 professionals and young workers through workforce housing provisions. The Westgate Mixed Use District requires that at least 10% of residential units shall be very small units designed 2 for affordable workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and that not more than 10% of all dwelling units may exceed 1,600 square feet in size. 4 22.110.050 Circulation and parking. 6 A. Alternative transportation. The goals of the Westgate Mixed Use District include improving connectedness for 8 pedestrian and bicycle users. Developers of private property within Westgate shall support the pedestrian and bicycle use of the District by providing: 10 • Internal circulation systems for both bicyclists and pedestrians within the property, • Connections to off-site systems in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties, 12 • Bicycle racks and other supportive facilities, and • Connections to bus stops and transit routes. 14 B. Internal circulation drives. The concept for an Internal Circulation drive is that of a shared street. This concept is 16 intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and provide pedestrian connectivity and to reduce the impact of local traffic movement on 18 surrounding arterial streets. Thoroughfare Type: shared street 20 Movement: yield Design Speed: 10 mph 22 Traffic Lanes: 10 feet Parking: none 24 Curb to Curb Distance: no curbs Sidewalks: 6 feet 26 28 Sample street section for internal circulation drive. 30 C. Parking Packet Page 273 of 787 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, 2 on bicycles, or travelling by motorized vehicles. These standards strive to: (a) maximize a compatible mix of parking and pedestrian circulation; and 4 (b) encourage the development of shared parking; and (c) promote density and diversity of the built environment. 6 Design standards for parking lots include the following: (a) No parcellot shall be used principally as a parking lot unless it provides centralized 8 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 10 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 12 abutting parking on adjacent lots, when parking lots are linked by vehicular and pedestrian connections (see item (f) below). 14 (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. 16 (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 18 with major building entries or other sidewalks, pathways, and destinations, and must be universally accessible and meet ADA standards. 20 (e) Landscaping in parking lots shall integrate with on-site pathways, include permeable pavements or bioswales where feasible, and minimize use of impervious pavement. 22 (f) Where a parking lot is abutting another parking lot on an adjacent parcellot, vehicular and pedestrian connections between lots are required, to facilitate circulation within Westgate 24 and to reduce the need for vehicles to return to the street when traveling between sites. 22.110.070 Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Feature Factor Standards. 26 A. Purpose and intent. This section identifies the types of amenity space spaces and greenand open space allowed 28 to satisfy the requirements ofwithin the Westgate District Mixed Use zone, and provides design standards for each type to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the City 30 of Edmonds’ goals for character and quality of the places surrounding the buildings and spaces to be constructed on private property within the Westgate area. This section also 32 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 34 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 36 Use Zone are to promote: • an environment that encourages and facilitates bicycling and pedestrian activity —38 “walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and • coherence of the public-right-of-way, serving to assist residents, building owners and 40 managers with understanding the relationship between the public right-of-way and their own properties; and 42 Packet Page 274 of 787 • 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 2 rainwater management. 4 B. Green Factor Requirements and Fulfillment 1. Overview 6 The Green Factor sets a minimum score that is required to be achieved by each development through implementation of allowed landscaping practices. The program provides 8 a menu of 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 10 the site design and implementation. In this approach, each qualifiedallowed landscape feature utilized in a project earns credits that are weighted and calculated through use of the Green 12 Factor Scoresheet. The score is based upon the relationship between the site size and the points earned by implementation of the specified landscape features. 14 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 16 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 18 cultivation. Scoring priorities come from livability considerations, an overall decrease in impervious surfaces and climate change adaptation. The functional benefits target a reduction 20 in stormwater runoff, a decrease in building energy, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in habitat space. 22 The minimum score required for all new development in the Westgate District is is 0.30, earned through implementation of features specified below that comply with Green-Factor 24 standards. The implementation of the Green Factor does not have any effect upon Other other site requirements such as Setbacks, Open Space Standards, Street and Parking Standards, and 26 City of Edmonds Municipal Stormwater Code and City of Edmonds Code for Landscaping Requirements that also apply. Green Factor credit may be earned for these site requirements 28 only if they comply with Green Factor standards. 2. Application and Implementation 30 The Green Factor for the Westgate District uses for reference Seattle Green Factor tools. These include: 32 · • the Green Factor Worksheet · • the Green Factor Score Sheet 34 · the Green Factor Plant List · the Green Factor and Tree listsList. 36 The Green Factor tools are included adopted in ECDC 22.110.100. In complying with the Green Factor Code, the following steps apply: 38 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 40 footage of landscaped areas, pervious paved amenity space, number of trees—using the Green Factor Worksheet. 42 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 44 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 46 Packet Page 275 of 787 required score of 0.30, 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, 2 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 4 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 6 been submitted to the client. Step 4. City of Edmonds staff verify that the code requirements have been met before 8 issuance of a permit. Using Green Factor with Other Requirements 10 While a specific green feature may count for both Green Factor calculations and other requirements such as Amenity Space or Open Space, the requirements for each need to be met 12 independently. As described in section 22.110.070(C) of this code, Open Space includes Amenity Space, which is usable open space with dimensions for recreational and passive 14 leisure use. In conjunction with the Green Factor requirements, theThe percentage of Amenity Space for Westgate is 15% of lot size, to be addressed within each development project , with 16 the possibility of cooperative aggregation between projects. The Open Space section 22.110.070(CD) also addresses green feature requirements, such as retention of vegetation on 18 steep slopes, specifications for tree size, and stormwater management (refer to ECDC18.30); these are examples of features that are likely to overlap with and contribute to the Green 20 Factor score while also contributing to the Open Space requirement. 3. Green Factor Categories: 22 The Green Factor tools may take into account the following Landscape Elements: • Landscaped Areas (based on soil depth) 24 • Bio-retention Facilities • Plantings (mulch and ground cover) 26 • Shrubs and Perennials • Tree Canopy (based on tree sizes) 28 • Green Roofs • Vegetated Walls 30 • Approved Water Features • Permeable Paving 32 • Structural Soil Systems • Bonuses for Drought Tolerant Plants, Harvested Rain Water, Food Cultivation, etc. 34 C. Open Space Standards 36 The Westgate District includes two types of open space: Amenity Space and Green Open Space. 38 C. Amenity Space 40 Amenity space is designed to provide residents and visitors of all ages with a variety of outdoor activity space. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form 42 the places that encourage residents and visitors to spend time in the company of others or to find solitudeenjoy time in an outdoor setting. 44 All new development shall provide amenity space equal to at least a minimum of 15% of the parcel lot size as amenity space. Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is 46 Packet Page 276 of 787 encouraged and can be part of the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in chapter 22.110.070(B) ECDC and or can contribute to bonus heights as defined in chapter 22.110.090 2 ECDC. All qualifying amenity space shall be open and accessible to the public during business hours. Qualifying amenity space shall be open to the air and located within six6 feet 4 of the groundfinished grade in order to provide some opportunity for variety and interest in public space while assuring easy accessibility for the public. 6 The types of aRequired and bonus amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms and no othersare as follows: 8 (a) Lawns: An open space, available for unstructured recreation. A lawn may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and 10 trees and shall provide a minimum of 60% planted pervious surface area (such as a turf, groundcover, soil or mulch.) 12 (b) Plazas: An open space, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by building facades, with strong connections to interior 14 uses. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are encouraged. Plazas shall be located between buildings and at the intersection of important streets. Plazas shall provide a 16 minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a 18 maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation or civic purposes. A square is 20 spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape shall consist of paths, lawns and trees with a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area 22 (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. 24 (d) Accessible Green Rooftops: Accessible green rooftops can confer significant added value to a building’s occupants or to the general public, with benefits ranging from enhanced 26 educational opportunities for schools, landscaped “roofparks” for leisure or recreational opportunities, horticultural therapy, and even food production. Accessible green rooftops that 28 provide these benefits may only count toward required amenity space if the building type specifically lists that feature as a permitted amenity space type. 30 Sidewalks: Although not counting toward required amenity space, the purpose of sidewalks is to provide safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian circulation along all streets, access to 32 shopfronts and businesses, and to improve the character and identity of commercial and residential areas consistent with the City of Edmonds vision. New development meeting the 34 standards of this Chapter may be allowed to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, or other uses consistent with City 36 code standards. 38 D. Green Open Space All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of lot size as open space. Qualifying 40 open space shall be unobstructed and open to the air. The goal for the overall open space in the Westgate District Mixed Use zone is to create a unified, harmonious, and aesthetically 42 pleasing environment that also integrates sustainable concepts and solutions that restore natural functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate District Mixed 44 Use zone shall incorporate green open space, as described in the regulations for each building type. Features contributing to the landscape character of Westgate Open space also includes: 46 Packet Page 277 of 787 (a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying 2 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 4 mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of recreation open space and amenity space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the 6 legibility of the District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. 8 • All new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. • All new development shall plant new trees in accordance with this chapter. 10 Trees not included in amenity space or open space areas are not counted toward meeting overall amenity space or open space requirements. For example, individual trees planted 12 along walkways or driveways may count toward meeting the Green Factor requirements but are not counted as open space. 14 (b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees 16 and vegetation on protected slopes, as shown on the map included in this section (Figure 22.110.070.D). No development activity, including activities such as clearing, grading, or 18 construction of structures or retaining walls, shall extend uphill of the protected slope line shown on the following map. Protected slope areas may count toward required open space if 20 they retain existing trees or are supplemented to provide a vegetative buffer. 22 (c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks should be conveyed to planted parkways or landscaped rain gardens. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the 24 roadways should be directed 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 26 which street stormwater runoff can flow to open vegetated swales may also be provided, wherever feasible. Stormwater features such as bioswales or planted rain gardens may count 28 toward required open space only if they are entirely landscaped. 30 Packet Page 278 of 787 22.110.070.D Protected Slopes 2 22.110.080 Public Space Standards. 4 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 6 ecological health. Future development of the Westgate Mixed Use District shall capitalize on opportunities to create and enhance public spaces for recreational use, pedestrian activity, and 8 ecological healththese opportunities to strengthen the overall character of the District’s public spaces. 10 A. Public Space: General Requirements 12 Public space shall enhance and promote the environmental quality and the aesthetic character of the Westgate District in the following ways: 14 (a) the landscape shall define, unify and enhance the public realm; including streets, parks, plazas, and sidewalks; 16 (b) the landscape shall be sensitive to its environmental context and utilize plant species that reduce the need for supplemental irrigation water; 18 (c) the landscape shall cleanse and detain storm water on site by utilizing a combination of biofiltration, permeable paving and subsurface detention methods; and, 20 Packet Page 279 of 787 (d) the landscape shall be compatible with encouraging health and wellness, encouraging walking, bicycling, and other activities. 2 B. Public Space: Sustainability 4 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 6 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 8 natural ecology. Water efficient landscaping shall be introduced to reduce irrigation requirements based on a 10 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 12 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 14 chemical herbicide treatments. Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation technology with low-pressure 16 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 18 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. 20 The location and selection of all new tree planting will adhere toimplement ‘green infrastructure’ principles andby visually expressing the underlying interconnectivity of the 22 Westgate development by doing the following:. 1. Species selection will shall be comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and 24 deciduous trees. 2. Trees will shall be used to define the landscape character of recreation and open space 26 areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the neighborhood by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. 28 1.3. Trees will shall also be used to soften and shade surface parking and circulation areas. 30 32 Packet Page 280 of 787 C. Stormwater Management. Stormwater shall be consistent with chapter 18.30 ECDC. 2 Stormwater and hydrology components will shall 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 shall 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 shall 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. 20 D. SR-104 / 100th Avenue Intersection. The configuration of development, amenity space, open space, and landscaping at this key 22 intersection is intended to provide a sense of place and serve as a signal of arrival at the Westgate area. 24 1. Step-backs are required for buildings at this intersection, as illustrated in Figure 22.110.010.B. 26 2. The required setback areas at this intersection shall be designed to use a combination of landscaping and amenity features (e.g. water features, art work) to signify the intersection’s 28 importance as a focal point of the Westgate area. 22.110.090 Height Bonus. 30 Areas eligible for a 4th story height bonus are shown in the diagram contained in chapter 22.110.010.B ECDC. Areas within the Westgate Mixed Use District that are not shown in 32 diagram ECDC 22.110.010.B may not contain four story buildings regardless of how many points such a development could achieve on the Height Bonus Score Sheet, below. In order to 34 obtain the height bonus for projects in eligible areas, the proposal must obtain 8 points from the Height Bonus Score Sheet, including pointswith at least one point in each of at least four 36 different scoring categories. When a 4th story is included proposed in a building, the 4th story must be stepped back at 38 least 10 feet 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 40 from the corner points of the right-of-way intersection. For proposals seeking to earn points in the Green Building Program category, the applicant 42 shall be required to submit a deposit sufficient for the city to retain an independent green building consultant who is qualified to evaluate the construction of the building at key 44 Packet Page 281 of 787 milestones in order to determine that the building is being constructed in a manner that is consistent with the points proposed on the Height Bonus Score Sheet. 2 Height Bonus Score Sheet Height Bonus to obtain 4 stories requires 8 points with points in at least 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 Miscellaneous (points are additive) Points ¨ Required Meet street standards incl. bikeway & pedestrian networks Required ¨ Credit 1 Car-share parking3., provide minimum 2 spaces 1 ¨ Credit 2 Charging facility for electric cars, provide minimum 4 spaces 1 ¨ Credit 3 Indoor/enclosed covered bicycle storage and indoor changing facilities 1 ¨ Credit 4 Public art integrated into provided amenity space 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 ECDC. 4 2 “Required” means required for all development, whether seeking a height bonus or not. 3. “Car-share” parking refers to parking for vehicles that are “shared” or rented by the hour or portion 6 of a day. 8 22.110.100 Green Factor Tools The Green Factor Tools included in Exhibit A are adopted by reference herein as if set 10 forth in their entirety for use in meeting the Green Factor requirements described in ECDC 22.110.070(B). 12 Packet Page 282 of 787 Exhibit A Edmonds Green Factor Tools This document includes the following materials: Green Factor Worksheet Green Factor Score Sheet Green Factor Plant List Green Factor Trees Packet Page 283 of 787 1 2 3 keep adding columns as needed A1 square feet 0 A2 square feet 0 A3 square feet 0 B1 square feet 0 B2 # of plants 0 B3 # of trees 0 B4 # of trees 0 B5 # of trees 0 B6 # of trees 0 B7 # of trees 0 C1 square feet 0 C2 square feet 0 D square feet 0 E square feet 0 F1 square feet 0 F2 square feet 0 G square feet 0 H1 square feet 0 H2 square feet 0 H3 square feet 0 H4 square feet 0 ** Enter totals on the Green Factor score sheet * See Green Factor score sheet for category definitions Planting Area TOTAL** Green Factor Worksheet* Packet Page 284 of 787 enter sq ft of parcel Parcel size (enter this value first) *5,000 SCORE - Landscape Elements**Factor Total A Landscaped areas (select one of the following for each area) enter sq ft 1 Landscaped areas with a soil depth of less than 24"0 0.1 - enter sq ft 2 Landscaped areas with a soil depth of 24" or greater 0 0.6 - enter sq ft 3 Bioretention facilities 0 1.0 - B Plantings (credit for plants in landscaped areas from Section A) enter sq ft 1 Mulch, ground covers, or other plants less than 2' tall at maturity 0 0.1 - enter number of plants 2 Shrubs or perennials 2'+ at maturity - calculated 0 0 0.3 - at 12 sq ft per plant (typically planted no closer than 18" on center) enter number of plants 3 Tree canopy for "small trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.3 - (canopy spread 8' to 15') - calculated at 75 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 4 Tree canopy for "small/medium trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.3 - (canopy spread 16' to 20') - calculated at 150 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 5 Tree canopy for "medium/large trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.4 - (canopy spread of 21' to 25') - calculated at 250 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 6 Tree canopy for "large trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.4 - (canopy spread of 26' to 30') - calculated at 350 sq ft per tree enter inches DBH 7 Tree canopy for preservation of large existing trees 0 0 0.8 - with trunks 6"+ in diameter - calculated at 20 sq ft per inch diameter C Green roofs enter sq ft 1 Over at least 2" and less than 4" of growth medium 0 0.4 - enter sq ft 2 Over at least 4" of growth medium 0 0.7 - enter sq ft D Vegetated walls 0 0.7 - enter sq ft E Approved water features 0 0.7 - F Permeable paving enter sq ft 1 Permeable paving over at least 6" and less than 24" of soil or gravel 0 0.2 - enter sq ft 2 Permeable paving over at least 24" of soil or gravel 0 0.5 - enter sq ft G Structural soil systems 0 0.2 - sub-total of sq ft =0 H Bonuses enter sq ft 1 Drought-tolerant or native plant species 0 0.1 - enter sq ft 2 Landscaped areas where at least 50% of annual irrigation needs are met 0 0.2 - through the use of harvested rainwater enter sq ft 3 Landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent 0 0.1 - public right of way or public open spaces enter sq ft 4 Landscaping in food cultivation 0 0.1 - Green Factor numerator =- Green Factor Score Sheet * Do not count public rights-of-way in parcel size calculation. ** You may count landscape improvements in rights-of-way contiguous with the parcel. All landscaping on private and public property must comply with the Landscape Standards Director's Rule (DR 6-2009) Project title: Totals from GF worksheet Packet Page 285 of 787 Revised December 2010 Se a t t l e G r e e n F a c t o r P l a n t L i s t Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A rc t o s t a p h y l o s u v a - u r s i ki n n i k i n n i c k ●● ● ● A sa r u m c a u d a t u m wi l d g i n g e r ●● ● Ca l l u n a , i n v a r i e t y he a t h e r ●● ● Ce r a t o s t i g m a p l u m b a g i n o i d e s ha r d y p l u m b a g o ●● ● ● Da b o e c i a c a n t a b r i c a Ir i s h h e a t h ●● ● Er i c a , i n v a r i e t y he a t h ●● ● Er i g e r o n k a r v i n s k i a n u s La t i n A m e r i c a n f l e a b a n e ●● ● ● Eu o n y m o u s f o r t u n e i ' C o l o r a t a ' wi n t e r c r e e p e r e u o n y m o u s ●● ● ● Fe s t u c a g l a u c a bl u e f e s c u e ●● ● Fr a g a r i a c h i l o e n s i s be a c h s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● ● Aggressive Fr a g a r i a x ' L i p s t i c k ' pi n k - f l o w e r e d b a r r e n s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● Aggressive Ge n i s t a l y d i a ha r d y d w a r f b r o o m ●● ● Ge n i s t a p i l o s a si l k y l e a f b r o o m ●● ● Ju n i p e r u s c o n f e r t a s h o r e j u n i p e r ●● ● Mi c r o b i o t a d e c u s s a t a Ru s s i a n a r b o r v i t a e ●● ● 2 Pa c h y s a n d r a t e r m i n a l i s Ja p a n e s e s p u r g e ●● ● Pa c h y s a n d r a p r o c u m b e n s Al l e g h e n y p a c h y s a n d r a ●● ● Pa x i s t i m a c a n b y i Ca n b y p a x i s t i m a ●● ● ● Ru b u s p e n t a l o b u s cr e e p i n g b r a m b l e ●● ● ● Vi n c a m i n o r pe r i w i n k l e ●● ● PE R E N N I A L S / F E R N S / G R A S S E S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ch i l l e a m i l l e f o l i u m ya r r o w ●● ● A ll i u m , i n v a r i e t y or n a m e n t a l a l l i u m ●● A ru n c u s s y l v e s t r e 'M i s t y L a c e " dw a r f g o a t s b e a r d ●● ● 1B A st e r , in v a r i e t y as t e r ●●● A th y r i u m f i l i x - f e m i n a la d y f e r n ●● ● No t e s : ● A l l p l a n t s o n t h i s l i s t a r e d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t o n c e t h e y a r e e s t a b l i s h e d u n l e s s c o m m e n t s i n d i c a t e o t h e r w i s e . ● S e a t t l e D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s R i g h t - o f W a y I m p r o v e m e n t M a n u a l e s t a b l i s h e s h e i g h t l i m i t s f o r n o n - s t r e e t - t r e e p l a n t i n g s i n r i g h t s - o f - w a y . M a x i m u m p l a n t he i g h t w i t h i n 3 0 f e e t o f a n i n t e r s e c t i o n ( a s m e a s u r e d f r o m t h e c o r n e r o f t h e c u r b ) i s 2 4 i n c h e s . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y , p l a n t i n g s a r e a l l o w e d t o b e 3 0 i n c h e s t a l l . ● " B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e " d e s c r i b e s w h e r e p l a n t s c a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e u s e d i n b i o r e t e n t i o n s y s t e m s s u c h a s s w a l e s a n d r a i n g a r d e n s . Z o n e 1 i s t h e d e s i g n a t i o n f o r p l a n t s th a t c a n b e u s e d i n t h e f l a t b o t t o m s o f b i o r e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t i e s : 1 A r e f e r s t o s p e c i e s t h a t p r e f e r s o i l s a t u r a t i o n o r s h a l l o w i n u n d a t i o n f o r l o n g d u r a t i o n s , w h i l e Z o n e 1 B re f e r s t o p l a n t s t h a t c a n a l t e r n a t e b e t w e e n d r y a n d s s h o r t - t e r m s a t u r a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . Z o n e 2 i s t h e d e s i g n a t i o n f o r p l a n t s b e s t u s e d a t t h e w e l l - d r a i n e d s l o p e s o f bi o r e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . A l l o t h e r s p e c i e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p l a n t i n g a t t h e t o p s o f b i o r e t e n t i o n a r e a s . GR O U N D C O V E R S Packet Page 286 of 787 Revised December 2010 Be r g e n i a , in v a r i e t y be r g e n i a ●● ● Bl e c h n u m s p i c a n t de e r f e r n ●● ● ● Ca l l u n a v u l g a r i s he a t h e r ●● ● Ca r e x a m p l i f o l i a am p l e - l e a v e d s e d g e ●● ● 1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x d o l i c h o s t a c h y a go l d f o u n t a i n s e d g e ● ● ● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Ca r e x m o r r o w i i Mo r r o w ' s s e d g e ● ● ● Ca r e x o b n u p t a sl o u g h s e d g e ● ●● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x p a c h y s t a c h y a th i c k - h e a d e d s e d g e ● ●● ● 1B Ca r e x s t i p a t a be a k e d s e d g e ●● ● ●1A N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x t e s t a c e a or a n g e s e d g e ● ● ● 1A, 1B, 2 Ci n e r a r i a m a r i t i m a du s t y m i l l e r ●● ● De s c h a m p s i a c e s p i t o s a tu f t e d h a i r g r a s s ●● ● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Di e r a m a p u l c h e r r i m u m an g e l ' s f i s h i n g r o d s ● ●● Ep i m e d i u m , in v a r i e t y bi s h o p ' s h a t ● ●● ● Ga i l l a r d i a , in v a r i e t y bl a n k e t f l o w e r ●● Ge r a n i u m m a c r o r r h i z u m bi g r o o t c r a n e s b i l l ●● ● 2 Ge r a n i u m x c a n t a b r i g i e n s e ‘B i o k o v o ’ Bi o k o v o g e r a n i u m ●● ●● He m e r o c a l l i s , in v a r i e t y da y l i l y ●● 2 He u c h e r a , in v a r i e t y he u c h e r a , c o r a l b e l l s ●● ● 2 Ib e r i s s e m p e r v i r e n s ev e r g r e e n c a n d y t u f t ●● ● Ir i s "P a c i f i c C o a s t H y b r i d s " Pa c i f i c C o a s t i r i s ●● ● ● ● Ju n c u s b a l t i c u s Ba l t i c r u s h ●● ● 1A, 1B Not drought-tolerant Ju n c u s e f f u s u s so f t r u s h ●● ●● 1A, 1B, 2Aggressive, not drought-tolerant Ju n c u s e n s i f o l i u s da g g e r l e a f r u s h ●● ● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Ju n c u s p a t e n s 'E l k b l u e ' Ca l i f o r n i a g r a y r u s h ●● ● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t La v a n d u l a a n g u s t i f o l i a la v e n d e r se m i ●● Li a t r i s s p i c a t a ga y f e a t h e r ●● Li r i o p e , in v a r i e t y li l y t u r f ●● ● Lu p i n u s , in v a r i e t y lu p i n e ●● ● Mo n a r d a d i d y m a 'P e t i t e W o n d e r ' be e b a l m ●● ● Mu s c a r i b o t r y o i d e s gr a p e h y a c i n t h ●● ● Na r c i s s u s , in v a r i e t y da f f o d i l ●● Ne p e t a , in v a r i e t y ca t m i n t ●● ●2 Or i g a n u m , i n v a r i e t y ma r j o r a m , o r n a m e n t a l o r e g a n o ●● ● Pe n s t e m o n , in v a r i e t y pe n s t e m o n ●● Pe t a s i t e s f r i g i d u s co l t s f o o t ●● ● 1A, 1B Not drought-tolerant Ph l o x s u b u l a t a ph l o x ●● Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m we s t e r n s w o r d f e r n ●● ● ●2 Ru d b e c k i a , in v a r i e t y co n e f l o w e r ●● Sa g i t t a r i a l a t i f o l i a ar r o w h e a d ●● Sa l v i a , in v a r i e t y sa g e ● ● ● Sc i r p u s a c u t u s ha r d s t e m b u l r u s h ●● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Packet Page 287 of 787 Revised December 2010 Sc i r p u s a t r o c i n c t u s wo o l - g r a s s ●● ● ● 1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Sc i r p u s m i c r o c a r p u s sm a l l - f r u i t e d b u l r u s h ●● ● 1A N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Th y m u s , i n v a r i e t y th y m e ●● ● To l m i e a m e n z i e s i i yo u t h - o n - a g e ● ●● Tu l i p a , i n v a r i e t y tu l i p ●● Yu c c a f i l a m e n t o s a yu c c a ●● ● LO W S H R U B S ( p r u n i n g m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n 2 4 " o r 3 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t i n R O W ) Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A be l i a x g r a n d i f l o r a 'R o s e C r e e k ' ab e l i a ●● ● ● 2 A rc t o s t a p h y l o s d e n s i f l o r a Vi n e H i l l m a n z a n i t a ●● ● 2 A rc t o s t a p h y l o s p u m i l a ma n z a n i t a ●● ● Be r b e r i s b u x i f o l i a ' P y g m a e a ' o r ' N a n a ' dw a r f b o x l e a f b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s c a n d i d u l a pa l e l e a f b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s d a r w i n i i ' Co m p a c t a ' dw a r f D a r w i n b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s s t e n o p h y l l a 'C o r a l l i n a C o m p a c t a ' dw a r f c o r a l h e d g e b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s t h u n b e r g i i Ja p a n e s e b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s v e r r u c u l o s a wa r t y b a r b e r r y ●● ●2 Bu x u s m i c r o p h y l l a 'C o m p a c t a ' li t t l e - l e a f b o x w o o d ●● ● Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s 'S u f f r u t i c o s a ' co m m o n e d g i n g b o x w o o d ●● ●2 Ca r y o p t e r i s , in v a r i e t y ca r y o p t e r i s ●● Ca s s i n i a l e p t o p h y l l a ca s s i n i a ●● ●2 Ce a n o t h u s g l o r i o s u s Po i n t R e y e s c e a n o t h u s ●● ● 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s o b t u s a 'N a n a ' dw a r f h i n o k i c y p r e s s ●● ● ● Ci s t u s , in v a r i e t y ro c k r o s e ●● ●2 Co r n u s s e r i c e a 'K e l s e y i i ' Ke l s e y r e d s t e m d o g w o o d ●● ●1B, 2 Co t o n e a s t e r d a m m e r i be a r b e r r y c o t o n e a s t e r ●● ● Da b o e c i a c a n t a b r i c a Ir i s h h e a t h ●● ● Es c a l l o n i a ‘C o m p a c t a ’ co m p a c t e s c a l l o n i a ●● ● ●2 Eu o n y m u s j a p o n i c u s 'M i c r o p h y l l u s ' ev e r g r e e n e u o n y m o u s ●● ● ●2 Eu r y o p s , in v a r i e t y eu r y o p s ●● ● ● 2 Ga u l t h e r i a s h a l l o n sa l a l ●● ● ●2 Ha l i m i o c i s t u s x sa h u c i i ha l i m i o c i s t u s ●● ● Ha l i m i o c i s t u s x wi n t o n e n s i s ha l i m i o c i s t u s ●● ● 2 He b e , in v a r i e t y he b e ●● ● ● 2 Hy d r a n g e a q u e r c i f o l i a 'P e e W e e ' dw a r f o a k - l e a f h y d r a n g e a ●● ●1B, 2 Il e x c r e n a t a ‘C o m p a c t a ’ Ja p a n e s e h o l l y ●● ●●2 Il e x c r e n a t a ' H e l l e r i ' He l l e r J a p a n e s e h o l l y ●● ● ● La v a n d u l a , in v a r i e t y la v a n d e r ●● ●2 Ma h o n i a n e r v o s a lo w O r e g o n h o l l y - g r a p e ●● ● ●2 Ma h o n i a r e p e n s cr e e p i n g O r e g o n h o l l y - g r a p e ●● ● ●● Na n d i n a d o m e s t i c a 'C o m p a c t a ' o r ' H a r b o r D w a r f ' or ' G u l f S t r e a m ' dw a r f h e a v e n l y - b a m b o o ●● ● ●2 Packet Page 288 of 787 Revised December 2010 Ol e a e u r o p a e a 'L i t t l e O l l i e ' [ ' M o n t r a ' ] dw a r f o l i v e ●● ● 2 Ph l o m i s p u r p u r e a ph l o m i s ●● ●2 Ph o r m i u m t e n a x 'T i n y T i m ' o r ' J a c k S p r a t ' co m p a c t N e w Z e a l a n d f l a x ●● ● Pi e r i s j a p o n i c a ' C a v a t i n e ' Ca v a t i n e ' a n d r o m e d a ●● ● Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a 'W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' a n d ' S h i m a ' dw a r f J a p a n e s e m o c k - o r a n g e ●● ● ●2 Po t e n t i l l a f r u t i c o s a sh r u b b y c i n q u e f o i l ●●2 Pr u n u s l a u r o c e r a s u s 'M o u n t V e r n o n ' Mo u n t V e r n o n c h e r r y l a u r e l ●● ● Rh o d o d e n d r o n 'P J M P r i n c e s s S u s a n ' (c o m p a c t / d w a r f f o r m ) co m p a c t P J M r h o d o d e n d r o n ●● ●2 Rh o d o d e n d r o n , i n v a r i e t y rh o d o d e n d r o n a n d a z a l e a ●● ● ●2 Rh u s a r o m a t i c a 'G r o - L o w ' dw a r f l e m o n a d e s u m a c ●● ●2 Ro s a n u t k a n a No o t k a R o s e ●● 1B, 2 Ro s a r u g o s a Ru g o s a R o s e ● 1B, 2 Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s 'C o l l i n g w o o d I n g r a m ' dw a r f r o s e m a r y ●● ●2 Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s '' M a j o r c a P i n k ' Ro s e m a r y ●● 2 Ru s c u s a c u l e a t u s a n d R . h y p o g l o s s u m bu t c h e r s b r o o m ●● ● Se n e c i o g r e y i i se n e c i o ●● ●2 Sa r c o c o c c a h o o k e r i a n a v a r . h u m i l i s sw e e t b o x ●● ● Sp i r a e a b e t u l i f o l i a sh i n y - l e a f s p i r e a ●● ● ●2 Sp i r a e a d o u g l a s i i St e e p l e b u s h ●● ● ●1A,1B, 2 Sp i r a e a j a p o n i c a 'L i t t l e P r i n c e s s ' dw a r f J a p a n e s e s p i r e a ●●2 Sp i r a e a x b u m a l d a ‘ M a g i c c a r p e t ’ bu m a l d a s p i r e a ●● ●1B Sy m p h o r i c a r p o s a l b u s sn o w b e r r y ● ●● ●1A, 1B, 2 Te u c r i u m c h a m a e d r y s wa l l g e r m a n d e r ●● ● Vi b u r n u m a c e r i f o l i u m ' N a n a ' dw a r f c r a n b e r r y b u s h v i b u r n u m ●● ●1B Vi b u r n u m d a v i d i i Da v i d v i b u r n u m ●● ● ●2 Vi b u r n u m t r i l o b u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' dw a r f c r a n b e r r y b u s h v i b u r n u m ●● ●1B, 2 TA L L S H R U B S ( s u b j e c t t o s i t e - s p e c i f i c a p p r o v a l i f u s e d i n R O W ) Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A rb u t u s u n e d o 'C o m p a c t a ' co m p a c t s t r a w b e r r y t r e e ●● ● 2 Ca m e l i a s a s a n q u a 'Y u l e t i d e ' yu l e t i d e c a m e l i a ●● ● Ce a n o t h u s J u l i a P h e l p s Sm a l l l e a f M o u n t a i n l i l a c ●● 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s o b t u s a ' n a n a g r a c i l i s ' dw a r f h i n o k i c y p r e s s ●● 2 Ch o i s y a t e r n a t a Me x i c a n m o c k o r a n g e ●● ● Co r n u s s t o l o n i f e r a Re d - o s i e r D o g w o o d ●● ● 1A, 1B, 2 Co r n u s s e r i c e a 'I s a n t i ' co m p a c t r e d t w i g d o g w o o d ●● ● 1B, 2 Hy d r a n g e a q u e r c i f o l i a oa k - l e a f h y d r a n g e a ●● 2 Ho l o d i s c u s d i s c o l o r Oc e a n S p r a y ●● ● 1 A , 1 B , 2 Ma h o n i a a q u i f o l i u m Ta l l O r e g o n G r a p e ●● ● ● 1 A , 1 B , 2 Packet Page 289 of 787 Revised December 2010 Ma h o n i a x m e d i a ' A r t h u r M e n z i e s ' hy b r i d m a h o n i a ●● ● ● 2 My r i c a c a l i f o r n i c a Ca l i f o r n i a w a x - m y r t l e ●● ● 2 Ph i l a d e l p h u s l e w i s i i Mo c k - o r a n g e ●● 1B,1A, 2 Ph o r m i u m t e n a x Ne w Z e a l a n d f l a x ●● 2 Ph y s o c a r p u s c a p t a t u s Pa c i f i c N i n e b a r k ●● ● 1B,1A, 2 Ph y s o c a r p u s o p u l i f o l i u s ' D i a b l o ' Di a b l o N i n e b a r k ●● 1B,1A, 2 Ri b e s s a n g u i n e u m an d c u l t i v a t e d v a r i e t i e s re d - f l o w e r i n g c u r r a n t ●● ● 2 Sa l i x h o o k e r i a n a Ho o k e r ' s W i l l o w ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ta x u s b a c c a t a ' Fa s t i g i a t a ' Ir i s h y e w ●● ● Va c c i n i u m o v a t u m ev e r g r e e n h u c k l e b e r r y ●● ● ● 2 BI O R E T E N T I O N T R E E S ( a p p r o p r i a t e f o r z o n e s 1 A o r 1 B ) , s u b j e c t t o s i t e - s p e c i f i c a p p r o v a l i n R O W . S e e G r e e n F a c t o r t r e e l i s t f o r n o n - b i o r e t e n t i o n o p t i o n s . Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s Ab i e s g r a n d i s Gr a n d F i r ●● ● 1B, 2 Ac e r c i r c i n a t u m Vi n e M a p l e ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ac e r g l a b r u m Ro c k y M o u n t i a n M a p l e ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' C o m m e m o r a t i o n ' Co m m e m o r a t i o n S u g a r M a p l e ●● 1A,1B, 2 Al n u s c r i s p a Si t k a A l d e r ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Al n u s r u b r a Re d A l d e r ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Be t u l a p a p y r i f e r a Wh i t e B i r c h ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s n o o t k a t e n s i s Al a s k a n C e d a r ●● ● ● 1A,1B, 2 Co r y l u s c o r n u t a Be a k e d H a z e l n u t ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Fr a x i n u s l a t i f o l i a Or e g o n A s h ●● 1A,1B, 2 Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a Sw e e t G u m ● 1A,1B, 2 Po p u l u s t r e m u l o i d e s Qu a k i n g A s p e n ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ps e u d o t s u g a m e n z i e s i i Do u g l a s F i r ●● ● ● 1B, 2 Rh a m u s p u r s h i a n a Ca s c a r a ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Sa l i x l u c i d a Pa c i f i c W i l l o w ●● 1A,1B, 2 Sa l i x s c o u l e r i a n a Sc o u l e r ' s W i l l o w ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m Ba l d C y p r e s s ● 1A,1B, 2 Th u j a p l i c a t u m We s t e r n R e d C e d a r ●● ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ts u g a h e t e r o p h y l l a We s t e r n H e m l o c k ●● ● ● 1A,1B, 2 Packet Page 290 of 787 Revised December 2010 V IN E S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ct i n i d i a k o l o m i k t a Ko l o m i k t a k i w i ●● A ke b i a q u i n a t a 5- l e a f a k e b i a ● ●● Aggressive A ri s t o l o c h i a m a c r o p h y l l a Du t c h m a n ' s p i p e ●● Cl e m a t i s a r m a n d i i ev e r g r e e n c l e m a t i s ●● Cl e m a t i s x c a r t m a n i i " B l a a v a l " Av a l a n c h e e v e r g r e e n c l e m a t i s ●● Cl e m a t i s m o n t a n a a n e m o n e c l e m a t i s ● Eu o n y m o u s f o r t u n e i 'K e w e n s i s ' o r ' R a d i c a n s ' cl i m b i n g w i n t e r c r e e p e r ●● ● Hy d r a n g e a a n o m a l a cl i m b i n g h y d r a n g e a ● Ja s m i n u m g r a n d i f l o r u m cl i m b i n g j a s m i n e ●● Lo n i c e r a c i l i o s a or a n g e h o n e y s u c k l e ●● Lo n i c e r a s e m p e r v i r e n s or L. h e c k r o t t i i tr u m p e t h o n e y s u c k l e / c o r a l h o n e y s u c k l e ● Pa s s i f l o r a , in v a r i e t y pa s s i o n v i n e ●● Aggressive Pa r t h e n o c i s s u s q u i n q u e f o l i a Vi r g i n i a c r e e p e r ● Pa r t h e n o c i s s u s t r i c u s p i d a t a Bo s t o n i v y ● Tr a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s st a r j a s m i n e ●● ● Wi s t e r i a , i n v a r i e t y wi s t e r i a ● GR E E N R O O F P L A N T S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ll i u m s c h o e n o p r a s u m ch i v e s ●● A ll i u m s e n e s c e n s la v e n d e r - f l o w e r e d o n i o n ●● ● De l o s p e r m a n u b i g e n u m ye l l o w i c e p l a n t ●● ● ● Fe s t u c a i d a h o e n s i s Id a h o f e s c u e ●● ●● Fr a g a r i a c h i l o e n s i s ba r r e n s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● ● He b e d e c u m b e n s gr o u n d h e b e ●● ● ● He l i a n t h e m u m n u m m u l a r i u m , in v a r i e t y su n r o s e ●● ● He u c h e r a m i c r a n t h a co r a l b e l l s / a l u m r o o t ● ● ● ● Ib e r i s s e m p e r v i r e n s ev e r g r e e n c a n d y t u f t ●● ● ● Mo n t i a p a r v i f l o r a sm a l l - f l o w e r e d s p r i n g - b e a u t y ●● ● ● Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s 'P r o s t r a t u s ' pr o s t r a t e r o s e m a r y ●● ● Se d u m d a s y p h y l l u m th i c k - l e a f s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m d i v e r g e n s Pa c i f i c s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m k a m t s c h a t i c u m Ru s s i a n s t o n e c r o p ●● ● Se d u m l a x u m ro s e f l o w e r s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m o r e g a n u m Or e g o n s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m s p a t h u l i f o l i u m br o a d l e a f s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m s t e f c o st o n e c r o p ●● ● Se m p e r v i v u m a r a c h n o i d e u m he n s a n d c h i c k s ●● ● Si s y r i n c h i u m b e l l u m bl u e - e y e d g r a s s ●● ● Ta l i n u m c a l y c i n u m fa m e f l o w e r ●● ● Tr i f o l i u m r e p e n s Ne w Z e a l a n d W h i t e C l o v e r s e m i ● Packet Page 291 of 787 Revised December 2010 SP E C I E S N O T P E R M I T T E D I N R O W O R N E W L A N D S C A P E P L A N S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e He d e r a h e l i x - - a l l v a r i e t i e s En g l i s h i v y Bu d d l e i a bu t t e r f l y b u s h Cl e m a t i s v i t a l b a ol d m a n ’ s b e a r d Il e x a q u i f o l i u m En g l i s h h o l l y Pr u n u s l a u r o c e r a s u s En g l i s h L a u r e l Po l y g o n u m a u b e r t i i si l v e r l a c e v i n e An y p l a n t s p e c i e s c l a s s i f i e d b y K i n g C o u n t y a s a Cl a s s A , B , o r C N o x i o u s W e e d Packet Page 292 of 787 Gr e e n F a c t o r T r e e s ( S o r t e d a c c o r d i n g t o c r i t e r i a ) Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e La r g e Ab i e s g r a n d i s Gr a n d F i r 1 0 0 3 5 0 Gr o w s a t 0 - 1 5 0 0 m i n m o i s t c o n i f e r fo r e s t s Ab i e s p r o c e r a No b l e F i r 9 0 3 0 0 Ac e r f r e e m a n i i ' A u t u m n B l a z e ' A u t u m n B l a z e M 5 0 4 0 37 7 0 0 6 Or a n g e Ac e r m a c r o p h y l l u m Bi g L e a f M a p l e 1 0 0 8 0 R o u n d e d 0 ye l l o w / br o w n Ve r y l a r g e n a t i v e Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ E m e r a l d Q u e E m e r a l d Q u e e n 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ‘ B o n f i r e ’ B o n f i r e S u g a r M a 5 0 4 0 O v a l 50 3 0 0 6 Br i g h t or a n g e r e d Fa s t e s t g r o w i n g s u g a r m a p l e . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' C o m m e m o r a t C o m m e m o r a t i o n 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 6 Or a n g e t o or a n g e - r e d Re s i s t a n t t o l e a f t a t t e r . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' L e g a c y ' L e g a c y S u g a r M a 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 5 Ye l l o w o r or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e - w h e r e s u g a r m a p l e i s de s i r e d i n s t a n d a r d p l a n t i n g s t r i p s Ae s c u l u s f l a v a Ye l l o w B u c k e y e 7 0 4 0 0 ye l l o w / or a n g e ye l l o w f l o w e r s - l e a s t s u s c e p i b l e t o le a f b l o t c h - l a r g e f r u i t Al n u s r u b r a Re d A l d e r 7 0 3 5 B r o a d l y c o n i 0 ye l l o w / br o w n ni t r o g e n f i x i n g Ce r c i d i p h y l l u m j a p o n i c u m K a t s u r a T r e e 4 0 4 0 O v a l 37 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ne e d s l o t s o f w a t e r w h e n y o u n g Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a Gr e e n B e e c h 5 0 4 0 O v a l 50 3 0 0 6 Br o n z e S i l v e r y - g r e y b a r k . Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ' A s p l e n i f o l i a ' F e r n l e a f B e e c h 6 0 6 0 0 6 go l d e n / br o w n Be a u t i f u l c u t l e a f Fr a x i n u s l a t i f o l i a Or e g o n A s h 6 0 3 5 0 ye l l o w / br o w n On l y n a t i v e a s h i n P N W We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 1 of 11 Packet Page 293 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Fr a x i n u s p e n n s y l v a n i c a ‘ U r b a n i U r b a n i t e A s h 5 0 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 5 0 3 0 0 6 De e p br o n z e To l e r a n t o f c i t y c o n d i t i o n s Gy m n o c l a d u s d i o i c u s ' E s p r e s s E s p r e s s o K e n t u c 5 0 3 5 0 6 ye l l o w v e r y c o a r s e b r a n c h e s - e x t r e m e l y la r g e b i - p i n n a t e l y c o m p o u n d l e a f - Li r i o d e n d r o n t u l i p i f e r a Tu l i p T r e e 6 0 3 0 O v a l 35 4 0 0 8 Ye l l o w F a s t - g r o w i n g t r e e . No t h o f a g u s a n t a r c t i c a An t a r c t i c B e e c h 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 6 No n e R u g g e d t w i s t e d b r a n c h i n g a n d pe t i t e f o l i a g e . Pi c e a s i t c h e n s i s Si t k a S p r u c e 1 0 0 3 0 0 Ev e r g r e e n N a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c o o l , m o i s t m a r i t i m e c l i m a t e Pi n u s m o n t i c o l a W e s t e r n W h i t e P i 1 0 0 3 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n O c c u r s i n l o w l a n d f o g f o r e s t s o r o n mo i s t m o u n t a i n s o i l s - p r i m a r y h o s t Pl a t a n u s x a c e r i f o l i a ' B l o o d g o o B l o o d g o o d L o n d o 5 0 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 6 3 7 0 0 8 Re d M o r e a n t h r a c n o s e r e s i s t a n t - n e e d s sp a c e Pl a t a n u s x a c e r i f o l i a ' Y a r w o o d ' Y a r w o o d L o n d o n 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 8 Ye l l o w - br o w n Hi g h r e s i s t a n c e t o p o w d e r y m i l d e w . Ps u d o t s u g a m e n z i e s i i Do u g l a s F i r 1 5 0 3 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n Qu e r c u s b i c o l o r Sw a m p W h i t e O a 4 5 4 5 55 7 0 0 8 Va r i e s . S h a g g y p e e l i n g b a r k Qu e r c u s c o c c i n e a Sc a r l e t O a k 5 0 4 0 U p r i g h t 50 3 0 0 6 Re d B e s t o a k f o r f a l l c o l o r Qu e r c u s g a r r y a n a Or e g o n O a k 4 5 4 0 O v a l 43 9 6 0 6 Na t i v e t o P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t Qu e r c u s i m b r i c a r i a Sh i n g l e O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 go l d e n / br o w n ni c e s u m m e r f o l i a g e - l e a v e s c a n pe r s i s t Qu e r c u s m u h l e n b e r g i i Ch e s t n u t O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 br o w n / ye l l o w co a r s e l y t o o t h e d l e a f Qu e r c u s r o b u r En g l i s h O a k 5 0 4 0 R o u n d e d 5 0 3 0 0 8 Ye l l o w - br o w n La r g e , s t u r d y t r e e Qu e r c u s r u b r a Re d O a k 5 0 4 5 R o u n d e d 6 3 6 0 0 8 Re d F a s t g r o w i n g o a k - n e e d s s p a c e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 2 of 11 Packet Page 294 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Qu e r c u s v e l u t i n a Bl a c k O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 ru s t y r e d Th u j a p l i c a t a W e s t e r n R e d C e 1 2 5 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 0 Ev e r g r e e n g r o w t h i s s t u n t e d o n d r y s o i l s Ts u g a h e t e r o p h y l l a W e s t e r n H e m l o c 1 3 0 3 0 0 Ev e r g r e e n Ul m u s ‘ H o m e s t e a d ’ Ho m e s t e a d E l m 6 0 3 5 48 1 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Ul m u s ‘ P i o n e e r ’ Pi o n e e r E l m 6 0 5 0 98 2 0 0 6 Ye l l o w R e s i s t a n t t o D u t c h e l m d i s e a s e . Ul m u s p a r v i f o l i a ‘ E m e r I I ’ A l l e e E l m 5 0 3 5 V a s e 38 5 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e Ex f o l i a t i n g b a r k a n d n i c e f a l l c o l o r Ze l k o v a s e r r a t a ‘ G r e e n v a s e ’ G r e e n V a s e Z e l k 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 5 Or a n g e V i g o r o u s Me d i u m / L a r g e Ac e r c a m p e s t r e He d g e M a p l e 3 0 3 0 14 1 0 0 5 Ye l l o w Ac e r c a m p e s t r e ‘ E v e l y n ’ Q u e e n E l i z a b e t h 3 5 3 0 17 7 0 0 5 Ye l l o w M o r e u p r i g h t b r a n c h i n g t h a n t h e sp e c i e s . Ac e r m i y a b e i ' M o r t o n ' St a t e S t r e e t M a p l 4 5 3 0 0 5 ye l l o w Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ P a r k w a y ’ P a r k w a y N o r w a y 4 0 2 5 14 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w t o l e r a n t o f v e r t i c i l l i u m w i l t Ac e r p s e u d o p l a t a n u s ‘ A t r o p u r p S p a e t h i i M a p l e 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 No t si g n i f i c a n t Le a v e s g r e e n o n t o p p u r p l e un d e r n e a t h . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' G r e e n M o u n t G r e e n M o u n t a i n 4 5 3 5 O v a l 33 7 0 0 6 Re d t o or a n g e . Re l i a b l e f a l l c o l o r Ae s c u l u s x c a r n e a ‘B r i o t t i i ’ R e d H o r s 3 0 3 5 19 2 0 0 5 No Re s i s t s h e a t a n d d r o u g h t b e t t e r th a n o t h e r h o r s e c h e s t m u t s . Be t u l a a l b o s i n e n e s i s v a r s e p t e C h i n e s e R e d B i r c 4 5 3 5 0 5 ye l l o w p i n k / w h i t e p e e l i n g b a r k Be t u l a j a c q u e m o n t i i Ja c q u e m o n t i i B i r 4 0 3 0 O v a l 21 2 0 0 5 Ye l l o w W h i t e b a r k m a k e s f o r g o o d w i n t e r in t e r e s t - b e s t f o r a p h i d r e s i s t a n c e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 3 of 11 Packet Page 295 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Be t u l a p a p y r i f e r a Pa p e r B i r c h 6 0 3 5 0 Ye l l o w / br o w n Hi g h s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o a p h i d in f e s t a t i o n Ch a m a e c y p a r i s p i s i f e r a S a w a r a C y p r e s s 4 5 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 7 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d - ma n y c u l t i v a r s a v a i l a b l e Co r y l u s c o l u r n a Tu r k i s h F i l b e r t 4 0 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 4 8 0 0 5 Ye l l o w T i g h t , f o r m a l , d e n s e c r o w n - n o t f o r hi g h p e d e s t r i a n a r e a s Eu c o m m i a u l m o i d e s H a r d y R u b b e r T r 5 0 4 0 0 5 Da r k g r e e n s h i n y l e a v e s Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ' R o h a n i i ' P u r p l e O a k L e a f 5 0 3 0 0 6 At t r a c t i v e p u r p l e l e a v e s w i t h w a v y ma r g i n s . Fr a x i n u s a m e r i c a n a ' A u t u m n A A u t u m n A p p l a u s 4 0 2 5 O v a l 14 7 0 0 5 Pu r p l e C o m p a c t t r e e - r e p o r t e d l y s e e d l e s s Fr a x i n u s a m e r i c a n a ' E m p i r e ' E m p i r e A s h 5 0 2 5 C o l u m n a r 1 7 9 0 0 5 Ru s t y Or a n g e Us e f o r a r e a s a d j a c e n t t o t a l l e r bu i l d i n g s w h e n a s h i s d e s i r e d Fr a x i n u s p e n n s y l v a n i c a ‘ P a t m o P a t m o r e A s h 4 5 3 5 O v a l 33 7 0 0 5 Ye l l o w E x t r e m e l y h a r d y , m a y b e s e e d l e s s . Gi n k o b i l o b a ‘ A u t u m n G o l d ’ A u t u m n G o l d G i n 4 5 3 5 P y r a m i d a l 3 3 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w N a r r o w w h e n y o u n g Ha l e s i a m o n t i c o l a Mo u n t a i n S i l v e r b 4 5 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w a t t r a c t i v e , s m a l l w h i t e f l o w e r Ko e l r e u t e r i a p a n i c u l a t a G o l d e n r a i n T r e e 3 0 3 0 14 1 0 0 Ye l l o w M i d s u m m e r b l o o m i n g . Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a ‘ R o t u n R o t u n d i l o b a S w e 4 5 2 5 17 2 0 0 6 Pu r p l e or a n g e On l y s w e e t g u m t h a t i s e n t i r e l y fr u i t l e s s . S m o o t h r o u n d e d l e a f Ma g n o l i a d e n u d a t a Yu l a n M a g n o l i a 4 0 4 0 0 5 6" i n c h , f r a g r a n t , w h i t e b l o s s o m s i n sp r i n g Me t a s e q u o i a g l y p t o s t r o b o i d e s D a w n R e d w o o d 5 0 2 5 N a r r o w 19 6 2 5 6 Ru s t y F a s t g r o w i n g d e c i d u o u s c o n i f e r Ny s s a s y l v a t i c a Tu p e l o 60 2 0 18 8 0 0 5 Ap r i c o t > br i g h t r e d Ha n d s o m e l y c h u n k y b a r k . Ph e l l o d e n d r o n a m u r e n s e ' M a c M a c h o C o r k T r e e 4 0 4 0 0 5 ye l l o w M a l e s e l e c t i o n - f r u i t l e s s - a n o t h e r go o d v a r i e t y i s ' H i s M a j e s t y ' We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 4 of 11 Packet Page 296 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Pi n u s n i g r a Au s t r i a n P i n e 4 5 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 7 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d - f a i r l y to l e r a n t o f h e a t , p o l l u t i o n , u r b a n Pi n u s p i n e a It a l i a n S t o n e P i n 4 0 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 2 1 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d Po p u l u s t r e m u l o i d e s Qu a k i n g A s p e n 5 0 3 0 0 ye l l o w / or a n g e Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ A r i s t o c r a t ’ A r i s t o c r a t P e a r 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 Re d G o o d b r a n c h a n g l e s - o n e o f t h e ta l l e s t p e a r s Qu e r c u s f r a i n e t t o It a l i a n O a k 5 0 3 0 O v a l 28 3 0 0 6 Ye l l o w - Br o w n Dr o u g h t r e s i s t a n t Qu e r c u s r o b u r ‘ f a s t i g i a t a ’ S k y r o c k e t O a k 4 0 1 5 17 2 0 0 6 Ye l l o w - br o w n Co l u m n a r v a r i e t y o f o a k . Sa l i x l a s i a n d r a Pa c i f i c W i l l o w 4 0 3 0 0 ye l l o w So p h o r a j a p o n i c a ' R e g e n t ' J a p a n e s e P a g o d 5 0 4 0 0 6 ye l l o w c a n h a v e t r u n k c a n k e r o r t w i g b l i g h t Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m Ba l d C y p r e s s 5 5 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 3 1 8 0 0 6 Ru s t y r e d A d e c i d u o u s c o n i f e r Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m ' M i c k e l s o n S h a w n e e B r a v e 5 5 2 0 N a r r o w / p y r . 1 4 1 0 0 6 Or a n g e / b r o n ze De c i d u o u s c o n i f e r - t o l e r a t e s c i t y co n d i t i o n s Ti l i a a m e r i c a n a ‘ R e d m o n d ’ R e d m o n d L i n d e n 4 5 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 2 1 2 0 0 8 Ye l l o w P y r a m i d a l , n e e d s w a t e r . Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ G r e e n s p i r e ’ G r e e n s p i r e L i n d e 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 Ye l l o w i s h S y m m e t r i c a l , p y r a m i d a l f o r m . Ze l k o v a s e r r a t a ‘ V i l l a g e G r e e n ’ V i l l a g e G r e e n Z e l 4 0 3 8 34 0 0 0 5 Ru s t y R e d Me d i u m / S m a l l Ac e r n i g r u m ‘ G r e e n C o l u m n ’ G r e e n C o l u m n B l 5 0 1 0 12 6 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Go o d c l o s e t o b u i l d i n g s . Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ C o l u m n a r ’ C o l u m n a r N o r w a 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Ye l l o w G o o d c l o s e t o b u i l d i n g s . Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ B o w h a l l ’ Bo w h a l l M a p l e 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Ye l l o w or a n g e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 5 of 11 Packet Page 297 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ K a r p i c k ’ Ka r p i c k M a p l e 3 5 - 4 0 2 0 88 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ma y w o r k u n d e r v e r y h i g h po w e r l i n e s w i t h a r b o r i s t ’ s a p p r o v a l . Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ S c a r s e n ’ S c a r l e t S e n t i n e l 4 0 2 0 94 0 0 5 Ye l l o w or a n g e Ac e r t r u n c a t u m x A . p l a t a n o i d e N o r w e g i a n S u n s 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 Ye l l o w - or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e u n d e r w i r e s Ac e r t r u n c a t u m x A . p l a t a n o i d e P a c i f i c S u n s e t M 3 0 2 5 98 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e u n d e r w i r e s Al n u s s i n u a t a Si t k a A l d e r 4 0 2 5 0 Pr e f e r s a h e a v y m o i s t s o i l - u s u a l l y fo u n d a b o v e 3 0 0 0 ' f e e t - c a n b e Ca r p i n u s b e t u l u s ‘F a s t i g i a t a ’ P y r a 3 5 1 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 2 3 0 0 5 Ye l l o w B r o a d e n s w h e n o l d e r Cl a d r a s t i s k e n t u k e a Ye l l o w w o o d 4 0 4 0 0 5 ye l l o w / or a n g e wh i t e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g , r e s e m b l i n g wi s t e r i a f l o w e r s Co r n u s c o n t r o v e r s a ' J u n e S n o G i a n t D o g w o o d 4 0 3 0 0 5 re d / o r a n g e L a r g e w h i t e f l o w e r c l u s t e r s t h a t ap p e a r i n J u n e Cr a t a e g u s c r u s - g a l l i ‘ I n e r m i s ’ T h o r n l e s s C o c k s 2 5 3 0 10 6 0 0 Or a n g e t o sc a r l e t Re d p e r s i s t e n t f r u i t . Cr a t a e g u s p h a e n o p y r u m W a s h i n g t o n H a w 2 5 2 0 47 0 0 Sc a r l e t T h o r n y . Cr a t a e g u s s u k s d o r f i i Su k s d o r f ' s H a w t h 3 0 2 5 0 Sh o r t e r s p i n e s t h a n C . D o u g l a s i i Cr a t a e g u s x l a v a l i i La v a l l e H a w t h o r n 2 8 2 0 56 0 0 Br o n z e T h o r n s o n y o u n g e r t r e e s . Da v i d i a i n v o l u c r a t a Do v e T r e e 4 0 3 0 0 5 la r g e , u n i q u e w h i t e f l o w e r s i n M a y Gi n k o b i l o b a ‘ P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y 4 0 1 5 C o l u m n a r 53 0 0 6 Ye l l o w V e r y n a r r o w g r o w t h . Ha l e s i a t e t r a p t e r a Ca r o l i n a S i l v e r b e l 3 5 3 0 I r r e g u l a r 0 5 Ye l l o w A t t r a c t i v e b a r k f o r s e a s o n a l i n t e r e s t Li b o c e d r u s d e c u r r e n s In c e n s e C e d a r 3 5 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 78 5 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 6 of 11 Packet Page 298 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a M o r a i n e S w e e t g u 4 0 2 0 94 0 0 6 Ye l l o w , or a n g e / r e d Li g h t g r e e n f o l i a g e . M o r e c o m p a c t th a n o t h e r v a r i e t i e s Ma a c k i a a m u r e n s i s Am u r M a a c k i a 3 0 2 0 0 5 no n e a t t r a c t i v e b a r k a n d s u m m e r fl o w e r s - g r o w s i n t o u g h c o n d i t i o n s Ma g n o l i a ' E l i z a b e t h ' El i z a b e t h M a g n o l 3 0 2 0 0 5 ye l l o w f l o w e r s Ma g n o l i a ' G a l a x y ' Ga l a x y M a g n o l i a 3 5 2 5 p y r a m i d a l 0 5 ye l l o w / b r o w n re d d i s h - p u r p l e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g . Ma g n o l i a g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ V i c t o r i a ’ V i c t o r i a E v e r g r e e 2 5 2 0 47 0 0 5 Ev e r g r e e n Ma g n o l i a K o b u s W a d a ' s M e m o r y 3 5 2 0 R o u n d 79 0 0 5 Br o w n D o e s n o t f l o w e r w e l l w h e n y o u n g Os t r y a v i r g i n i a n a Ir o n w o o d 4 0 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w h o p l i k e f r u i t Pa r r o t i a p e r s i c a Pe r s i a n P a r r o t i a 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e r e d Se l e c t o r p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m ; c a n be m u l t i - t r u n k e d . Pi n u s d e n s i f l o r a ' U m b r a c u l i f e r a U m b r e l l a P i n e 2 5 2 0 O v a l 48 1 0 8 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d Pr u n u s x y e d o e n s i s ‘ A k e b o n o ’ A k e b o n o F l o w e r i 2 5 2 5 74 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Pt e r o s t y r a x h i s p i d a Fr a g r a n t E p a u l e t t 4 0 3 0 0 5 ye l l o w / br o w n Pe n d u l o u s c r e a m y w h i t e f l o w e r s - fr a g r a n t Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ C a m b r i d g e ' ’ C a m b r i d g e P e a r 4 0 1 5 P y r a m i d a l 53 0 0 5 Re d d i s h pu r p l e Na r r o w t r e e w i t h g o o d b r a n c h an g l e s a n d f o r m Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ G l e n ' s F o r m ’ C h a n t i c l e e r o r C l 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Sc a r l e t V i g o r o u s . Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ R e d s p i r e ’ R e d s p i r e P e a r 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 Ye l l o w t o re d Py r a m i d a l . Qu e r c u s ‘ C r i m s c h m i d t ’ C r i m s o n S p i r e O 4 5 1 5 62 0 0 Ha r d t o f i n d . Ro b i n i a x a m b i g u a Pi n k I d a h o L o c u s 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 5 Ye l l o w F r a g r a n t f l o w e r s . We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 7 of 11 Packet Page 299 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Sc i a d o p i t y s v e r t i c i l l a t a Ja p a n e s e U m b r e l 3 0 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 63 0 0 8 Ev e r g r e e n G r o w s s l o w l y - p r i s t i n e e v e r g r e e n fo l i a g e - s p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l So r b u s a l n i f o l i a Ko r e a n M o u n t a i n 4 0 3 0 0 5 or a n g e S i m p l e l e a v e s . B e a u t i f u l p i n k - r e d fr u i t - m a y b e s h o r t l i v e d So r b u s a u c u p a r i a ‘ M i t c h r e d ’ C a r d i n a l R o y a l M 3 5 2 0 79 0 0 5 Ru s t B r i g h t r e d b e r r i e s . So r b u s x h y b r i d i a Oa k l e a f R o y a l M t 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ru s t St e w a r t i a m o n o d e l p h a O r a n g e B a r k S t e 3 0 2 0 0 5 or a n g e o r a n g e p e e l i n g b a r k - w h i t e f l o w e r s in s p r i n g Ta x u s b r e v i f o l i a Pa c i f i c Y e w 4 0 2 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n t y p i c a l l y o c c u r s a s a n u n d e r s t o r y tr e e 3 - 5 m t a l l w e s t o f t h e C a s c a d e s Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ D e G r o o t ’ D e G r o o t L i t t l e l e a 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ye l l o w C o m p a c t , s u c k e r s l e s s t h a n o t h e r Li n d e n s . Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ C h a n c o l e ’ C h a n c e l o r L i n d e n 3 5 2 0 79 0 0 5 Ye l l o w P y r a m i d a l . Sm a l l Ac e r b u e g e r i a n u m Tr i d e n t M a p l e 3 0 3 0 0 or a n g e / r e d s e l e c t f o r a s i n g l e s t e m Ac e r c i r c i n a t u m Vi n e M a p l e 2 5 2 5 0 5 re d / o r a n g e D o n o t u s e i n e x p o s e d ' h a r s h ' s i t e s in s t r e e t s c a p e p l a n t i n g s . Ac e r g i n n a l a ‘ F l a m e ’ F l a m e A m u r M a 2 0 2 0 R o u n d 31 0 0 5 Re d S e l e c t o r p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m ; c a n be m u l t i - t r u n k e d . Ac e r g r a n d i d e n t a t u m ‘ S c h m i d t ’ R o c k y M t . G l o w 2 5 + 1 5 27 0 0 5 In t e n s e r e d H a r d t o f i n d Ac e r g r i s e u m Pa p e r b a r k M a p l e 2 5 2 0 27 0 0 5 Sm o o t h , p e e l i n g , c i n n a m o n c o l o r e d ba r k . Ac e r p a l m a t u m Ja p a n e s e M a p l e 2 0 2 4 11 0 0 5 Y Hu n d r e d s o f v a r i e d c u l t i v a r s . C a n be s l o w g r o w i n g . Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ G l o b o s u m ’ G l o b e N o r w a y M 2 0 1 8 25 0 0 5 Ye l l o w R o u n d e d t o p , a n d c o m p a c t g r o w t h . Ac e r t r i f l o r u m Th r e e - F l o w e r M a 2 5 2 0 0 5 ap r i c o t / g o l d c r e a m c o l o r e d s h a g g y b a r k We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 8 of 11 Packet Page 300 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Am e l a n c h i e r a l n i f o l i a Sa s k a t o o n S e r v i c 2 0 1 5 0 sh r u b l i k e f o r m - m a y b e d i f f i c u l t t o tr a i n i n t o t r e e f o r m Am e l a n c h i e r g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ P r i n c P r i n c e s s D i a n a S 2 0 1 5 18 0 0 5 Br i g h t r e d G o o d f o r l i m i t e d s p a c e . Am e l a n c h i e r x g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ A u t u A u t u m n B r i l l i a n c e 2 0 1 5 18 0 0 5 Br i g h t r e d R e l i a b l e b l o o m . Ar b u t u s ‘ M a r i n a ’ St r a w b e r r y T r e e 2 5 1 5 27 0 0 5 Go o d s u b s t i t u t e f o r P a c i f i c Ma d r o n e . M a y e x c e e d 2 5 ’ h e i g h t As i m i n a t r i l o b a Pa w P a w 3 0 2 0 0 5 ye l l o w p u r p l i s h b e l l s h a p e d f l o w e r i n s p r i n g be f o r e l e a v e s e m e r g e Ca r p i n u s c a r o l i n i a n a Am e r i c a n H o r n b e 2 5 2 0 27 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ou t s t a n d i n g f a l l c o l o r – n i c e l i t t l e tr e e Ca r p i n u s j a p o n i c u s Ja p a n e s e H o r n b 2 0 2 5 11 0 0 5 Br o n z e W i d e s p r e a d i n g – n o t f o r c o n f i n e d sp a c e s Ce r c i s c a n a d e n s i s Ea s t e r n R e d b u d 2 5 3 0 16 0 0 5 Ye l l o w B l o o m s b e f o r e l e a v e s a r e o u t . Ce r c i s s i l i q u a s t r u m Ju d a s T r e e ( E u r o 2 5 3 0 O v a l 16 0 0 5 Ye l l o w b l o o m s b e f o r e l e a v e s e m e r g e Co r n u s a l t e r n i f o l i a Pa g o d a D o g w o o 2 5 2 5 0 5 re d a t t r a c t i v e w h i t e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g - pr u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m Co r n u s ' E d d i e ' s W h i t e W o n d e r ' E d d i e ' s W h i t e W 2 5 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 27 0 0 5 Re d A h y b r i d o f C . f l o r i d a a n d C . n u t t a l i i Co r n u s k o u s a ‘ C h i n e n s i s ’ K o u s a D o g w o o d 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Re d d i s h t o sc a r l e t Mo s t r e s i s t a n t t o d i s e a s e o f t h e do g w o o d s . Co t i n u s o b o v a t u s Am e r i c a n S m o k e 2 5 2 5 0 5 va r i e d p i n k i s h p a n i c l e o f f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g - ca n p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m Cr a t a e g u s d o u g l a s i i Bl a c k H a w t h o r n e 3 0 2 5 0 re d / o r a n g e U p t o 1 " i n c h t h o r n s - t i c k e t fo r m i n g - m a y s p r e a d u n d e r g r o u n d Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ‘D a w y c k P u r p l e ’ 4 0 1 2 C o l u m n a r 34 0 0 5 No Pu r p l e f o l i a g e . La g e r s t r o e m i a ' t u s c a r o r a ' T u s c a r o r a H y b r i d 2 0 1 8 25 0 0 5 Ye l l o w R o u n d e d t o p , a n d c o m p a c t g r o w t h . We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 9 of 11 Packet Page 301 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Li r i o d e n d r o n t u l i p i f e r a ' F a s t i g i a t C o l u m n a r T u l i p 4 0 1 0 N a r r o w 24 0 0 6 Ye l l o w G o o d n e x t t o b u i l d i n g s . Ma g n o l i a g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ L i t t l e G e L i t t l e G e m M a g n 1 5 1 0 16 0 0 5 Ev e r g r e e n U s e f u l w h e r e l a r g e r v a r i e t i e s a r e in a p p r o p r i a t e . Ma g n o l i a x l o e b n e r i Lo e b n e r M a g n o l i 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 Ye l l o w S e v e r a l c u l t i v a r s . Ma l u s ‘ A d i r o n d a c k ’ Ad i r o n d a c k C r a b 1 8 1 0 U p r i g h t 16 0 0 5 Re d f r u i t . E x c e l l e n t s c a b r e s i s t a n c e . Ma l u s ‘ G o l d e n R a i n d r o p s ’ G o l d e n R a i n d r o p 1 8 1 3 11 0 0 5 Ye l l o w A b u n d a n t y e l l o w f r u i t - p e r s i s t s o n tr e e . Ma l u s ‘ T s c h o n o s k i i ’ Ts c h o n o s k i i C r a b 2 8 1 4 20 0 0 5 Sc a r l e t S p a r s e g r e e n f r u i t , p y r a m i d a l . Ma l u s ' D o n a l d W y m a n ' D o n a l d W y m a n 2 5 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w D i s e a s e r e s i s t a n t - n i c e g r e e n fo l i a g e i n s u m m e r - l a r g e w h i t e Ma l u s f u s c a Pa c i f i c C r a b a p p l e 4 0 2 5 0 Ox y d e n d r o n a r b o r e u m S o u r w o o d 3 5 1 2 28 0 0 5 Re d C o n s i s t e n t a n d b r i l l i a n t f a l l c o l o r . Pr u n u s ‘ F r a n k t h r e e s ’ M t . S t . H e l e n s P l 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Pu r p l e f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s ‘ N e w p o r t ’ Ne w p o r t P l u m 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Re d d i s h P u r p l e r e d f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s ‘ S n o w g o o s e ’ S n o w G o o s e C h 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 6 Up r i g h t w h e n y o u n g , s p r e a d i n g wh e n o l d e r . Pr u n u s c e r a s i f e r a ‘ K r a u t e r V e s V e s u v i u s F l o w e r i 3 0 1 5 35 0 0 5 Up r i g h t g r o w t h , d a r k e s t f o l i a g e o f th e p l u m s . Pr u n u s c e r a s i f e r a ‘ T h u n d e r c l o u T h u n d e r c l o u d P l u 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Da r k p u r p l e f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s s a r g e n t i i ' C o l u m n a r i s ' C o l u m n a r S a r g e n 3 5 1 5 C o l u m n a r 44 0 0 8 Or a n g e t o or a n g e - r e d Up r i g h t f o r m . T h e c h e r r y w i t h t h e be s t f a l l c o l o r . Pr u n u s x h i l l i e r i ‘ S p i r e ’ Sp i r e C h e r r y 3 0 1 0 C o l u m n a r 16 0 0 6 Or a n g e r e d We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 10 of 11 Packet Page 302 of 787 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Qu e r c u s I l e x Ho l l y O a k 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Pr u n e t o k e e p s m a l l , l e a v e i t a l o n e to g r o w l a r g e . Rh a m n u s p u r s h i a n a Ca s c a r a 30 2 0 0 5 re d / o r a n g e St e w a r t i a p s u e d o c a m e l l i a J a p a n e s e S t e w a r 2 5 1 5 0 5 or a n g e / r e d P a t c h w o r k b a r k - w h i t e f l o w e r i n sp r i n g . St y r a x j a p o n i c a Ja p a n e s e S n o w b 2 5 2 5 28 0 0 5 Ye l l o w P l e n t i f u l , g r e e n 1 / 2 ” s e e d s . St y r a x o b a s s i a Fr a g r a n t S t y r a x 2 5 2 0 O v a l 27 0 0 5 ye l l o w S m o o t h g r a y b a r k a n d f r a g r e n t wh i t e f l o w e r s Sm a l l / C o n s t r a i n e d s i t e Ma l u s ‘ R e d B a r r o n ’ Re d B a r r o n C r a b 1 8 8 40 0 5 Ye l l o w G o o d f o r n a r r o w s p a c e s . R e d be r r i e s . Ma l u s ' L a n c e l o t ' ( ' L a n z a m ' ) L a n c e l o t C r a b a p 1 5 1 0 0 5 ye l l o w F l o w e r i s r e d i n b u d . Y e l l o w f r u i t . Di s e a s e r e s i s t a n t Pr u n u s s e r r u l a t a ‘ A m a n o g a w a ’ A m a n o g a w a F l o 2 0 6 30 0 6 Br o n z e P a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l f o r v e r y n a r r o w pl a n t i n g s t r i p s . So r b u s a m e r i c a n a ‘ D w a r f c r o w n R e d C a s c a d e M o 1 8 8 40 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e Ni c e w i n t e r f o r m – w h i t e f l o w e r s i n sp r i n g – r e d c l u s t e r s o f b e r r i e s Tr a c h e o c a r p u s f o r t u n n i W i n d m i l l P a l m 2 5 1 0 O v a l 30 0 5 EV t r a f f i c v i s i b i l i t y c a n b e a p r o b l e m wi t h s m a l l p l a n t s We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 11 of 11 Packet Page 303 of 787 232ND ST SW 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 228TH PL SW 227TH PL SW 1 5 T H W A Y S W 231ST PL SW 9 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H A V E W227THPLSW E D M O N D S W AY 1 0 0 T H A V E W 232ND ST SW 9 9 T H A V E W 9 8 T H P L W 9 5 3 0 97 2 6 DU S T Y ' S 97 2 2 97 2 0 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 8 98 0 6 98 0 2 97 9 8 97 9 4 97 9 2 97 9 0 23028BARTELL'S -10030 23028 SALEMLUTHERNCHURCH 23115 1001610022 9601 96 2 4 228042 2 8 0 6 10116 23102 95 1 7 95 1 1 9508 9 5 1 4 9520 96 1 1 96 1 5 9609 23115 2310723103 23125 22915 2291122907 22831 10 1 3 0 2281722818 22828 22826 22808 22806 22925 22933 22919 22717 9709 952 1 95 1 5 9520 9 5 2 4 23001 95 2 1 95 3 1 22711 22721 22719 95 1 3 23 1 2 6 23 1 2 4 23120 95 1 4 74 4 9705 9702 9706971 0 97 1 6 9724 22727 22712 9529 9504 9 5 1 0 9 5 1 6 23 0 1 5 9601 23215 9516 95 1 2 95 1 0 95 3 2 95 2 1 95 0 9 9507 95 1 5 95 2 3 95 2 9 96 0 4 23029 23 1 0 6 98 2 2 2301 723027 10119 1010 9 10 1 0 1 23124 23122 23114 9906 23216 23206 23215 9624 23214 23206 23215 232059924 23218 23214 23206 23029 9920 961023109 96 0 7 96 2 3 23 1 2 3 9729 23126 2303023028 9706971897 2 8 97 2 7 9717 9707 23127 23119 23111 23105 2303123030 23104 23110 23118 982599 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 7 23107 23105 23108 23110 23112 23104 23102 23105 23117 23119 23121 9713 22710 22718 23019 100 3 2 98 2 1 98 2 9 9803 98 2 1 2280 3 228 0 8 228 1 0 22809 228 0 7 22 8 0 5 9 7 0 1 22 7 2 6 22 7 2 0 9715 9706 97039711 23015 23027 98 2 8 2273122714 97 2 7 22710820 99 2 6 99 1 8 99 1 0 99 0 4 9826 98 2 0 99 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 5 10 1 1 9 23009 1 0 2 0 0 22828 9930 9910 97 2 4 98 0 4 23025 9727 22815 22811 22805 23024 98 0 5 98 1 3 9820 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 1 7 2280410117 750 22910 22920 22 9 1 2 23002 23006 22930 23 0 0 4 23026 23024 771 9827 9620 23003 23009 2301723024 23014 23027 740 761 230 1 1 23001 10 1 2 4 10 1 1 5 76 GAS IVAR'S PA R K I N G PARKING ROSEWOOD CT TE N N I S CO U R T S BANK QFC SUNRISE OLD WOODWAYH.S. TACOBELL GOODWILL PARKING PARKING WALGREEN'S PCC NATURALMARKET PARKING BANK M C D O N A L D ' S 9801 9797 BANK June 2014 ¯ 1 inch = 250 feet City of Edmonds121 5th Ave NEdmonds, WA 98020 500 Feet Proposed Westgate Mixed Use Zone Zoning Map Amendment Packet Page 304 of 787 For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between applying for and accepting a grant. The City is not under any obligation to accept grant funds once it a grant is awarded although the City would look bad to the granting agencies and potentially lose credibility if it rejected grants on a regular basis. He has noticed the Council and administration may not be on the same page about how to pursue grant funds and that a great deal of the frustration and tension regarding projects often stems from a grant application. It is a chicken and egg problem, what authority if any should the administration have to pursue grants; whether a project needs to be on a particular list in order to pursue a grant. There is legitimate policy debate the Council needs to have regarding these questions. Mr. Taraday commented another issue is prioritization of projects and who should prioritize projects, the Council or administration, and can the administration pursue a grant for any project in the CFP. In reality, administration has a better handle on what projects they can obtain funds for. The Council may have its prioritized list but there needs to be better dialogue between the Council and the administration regarding projects administration thinks funding can be obtained for which may not necessarily match the Council’s prioritized list. Council President Buckshnis commented using $10,000 to leverage $320,000 was a no brainer. She agreed there may need to be a policy because this issue keeps coming up. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Council President Buckshnis’ question and asked about the current policy with regard to this set of facts. Mr. Taraday answered the Council currently adopts the budget at the fund level which gives the administration the authority to reallocate funds as long as it does not overspend the appropriation for a given fund. For example, the crosswalk, he supposed the fund language was lenient to enough allow for some reallocation within the fund. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that the City did not receive a grant from the State for the crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed, adding the City did not apply for a grant. Councilmember Mesaros summarized therefore the project did not have to be on the CFP or CIP because it was not a City project. Councilmember Petso said she understood that staff can reallocate within the fund but she was not aware that staff could reallocate money to projects that are not on CFP, CIP or TIP. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on how the documents are drafted; he has not been asked to analyze whether the way the current budget is adopted gives the administration flexibility to reallocate funds to projects that are not otherwise on the list. If the Council approves a project such as a walkway and realistically funding is easier to obtain if the project is converted into a multiuse pathway, Councilmember Petso asked whether that decision should come back to Council or does approval of a walkway also approve a change in a project to cater to a grant opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered there was a policy question and a legal question. Legally it depends on how detailed the description of the project is. For example if the capital budget says in 2014 the City will spend money on these and only these capital projects and those capital projects are very carefully detailed in a manner that do not allow a change such as from a walkway to a multiuse path, it could not be done without a budget amendment. He did not know if that had been done in the past. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Buckshnis distributed a suggested format for the study session. 10. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO WESTGATE Council President Buckshnis relayed tonight is a trial run; there will be a format in place for the next study session on October 14. She described tonight’s format: a presentation from staff, followed by a Packet Page 305 of 787 round robin of questions where each Councilmember is allowed three questions, and continuing until all questions have been answered. If time permits after all the questions have been answered, the Council can have a global discussion. Planning Manager Rob Chave commented on the process to date including a Council public hearing on August 4, 2014. He provided examples of recent changes/adjustments: • Clarified standards for amenity space and open space, for example clarified 15% minimum for each, clarified where these can be located • Additional design standards for buildings • Incentives for large retail spaces With regard to traffic and setbacks: • Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) • 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in last 2014/early 2015 will identify any additional recommendations for ROW improvements • Setback requirements can be revised if needed With regard to parking: • Parking standards are minimums • Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900 square feet. Achieves two goals: o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) o Provides an added incentive for smaller units • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square foot • Existing grocery stores have a range 1 space per 350-370 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour; much less during other parts of day • Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided onsite (e.g. QFC property has 1 space per 475 square foot) • Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely many at 1/500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdictions • Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units Regarding lots and setbacks: • Commercial areas provide street and residential setbacks, but not other setbacks • Provides flexibility for locating and linking businesses Mr. Chave displayed and described an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. He explained commercial areas provide setback in two ways, 1) from residential areas, and 2) from streets. There are no side setbacks or minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. He noted the QFC and PCC buildings were set on several of their lot lines. QFC owns their property; PCC leases their property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and described the amenity/open space versus setbacks. He provided details regarding the McDonald’s property: • 190 feet deep • 400 feet wide • Approx. 50 foot old front setback (actual - which includes 5-foot landscaping strip) • Approx. 50 foot non-developed slope area • 76,000 total lot area Packet Page 306 of 787 • 11,400 - 15% amenity space required • 11,400 - 15% open space • 20,000 protected slope area 26.3% of total site • 4,800 front 12-foot setback 6.3% of total site • 8,000 front 20-foot setback 10.5% of total site • Development scenarios Existing Code New Code o Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 o Are available for building 62,000 44,600 o Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 With regard to amenity vs. open space: • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area, with a 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirement • Note: No other zone in the City has anything like these requirements With regard to commercial requirements: • Clarified the various building types to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types: Building Type Residential Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor He displayed the original and a revised building type map. With regard to building design, he explained: • A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, blank walls and ground floor ceiling heights. • Note that any 4th story “must be stepped back 10 feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Avenue West” (page 27) Mr. Chave displayed illustrations in the plan, largely taken from the commercial building standards for downtown. With regard to large format retail, he explained: • Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) 1) Adding bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (p. 38) 2) A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling space in a large format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail space is provided in building (page 6/7) • Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment Mr. Chave displayed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that qualified for height bonus. Packet Page 307 of 787 Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Chave’s statement that parking requirements are minimums. In the example of Bartell’s, if they feel they need more parking to redevelop they will provide it to enhance their business. Mr. Chave identified a lot behind Bartells that was provided in anticipation of a new building. Bartells provided more parking than they needed in anticipation of that additional development which did not occur due to the economy. Councilmember Peterson commented there is a certain point in development where the developer makes their decision; if the City does not overly restrict, the market will dictate what is required. Mr. Chave answered one aspect of the market is the developer’s experience or the store’s experience with the type of parking they need. A second factor is the bank/investor looks closely at the market, access and parking. The final phase is ensuring the proposal meets the City’s parking standards. If the parking standards are too tight, it can halt the process at the beginning particularly with infill in existing areas. In Bartell’s case, they have a well-defined site and parking; they have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking for their store. Mr. Chase commented another significant issue is the existing investments and ownership patterns. Bartells is in the process acquiring the entire corner; they currently only own store. QFC owns their property and have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking. QFC did a significant interior remodel approximately five years ago and is a very successful store even with PCC across the street. He did not fore see any of the main anchors, PCC, QFC or Bartells, moving out any time soon because they very successful. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any requirement that the entire first floor of the Type 7 buildings be commercial versus tuck-under or semi-underground parking. Mr. Chave did not recall any specific numbers. Councilmember Petso asked why amenity space was allowed to be in the setback area or six feet underground or six feet above ground. If the amenity space was in the setback area, she feared it may be close to the road. If the amenity space is underground or above ground, it may be nearly inaccessible and potentially invisible to passersby. She asked why that type of the amenity would be desired. Mr. Chave answered the reason for the six-foot requirement was to bring it down, close to the ground. In areas that have this type of amenity space such as plazas, there are frequently multiple levels, integrated seating, or a multi-functional plaza that serves as an outdoor amphitheater. The intent of the six feet was to make it pedestrian scale but also provide flexibility with regard to how the space was arranged. A requirement for ground floor would not provide for that type of varied areas. With regard to the setback, in the McDonald’s example, Mr. Chave explained if there is a 12-foot front setback there is already a reserved area behind near the slope; adding the amenity space leaves very little site area. The area cannot be used for parking and a McDonald’s is not going to have parking under the building which may rule out a use like a McDonald’s. Many sites will be hard pressed to satisfy the amenity space requirement even if the amenity space is in the front. If a walkway is provided near the right-of-way, for example the new landscaping/walkway area in front of Walgreens, the walkway is wider than the usual 4-5 feet. Near Walgreens there is a 5-foot planting area and a 7-foot wide walkway. The right-of-way was only 10 feet; in order to construct the additional walkway, an easement was obtained from the property owner to expand the walkway. The sidewalk does not count as amenity space; they still have to provide the 15%. Councilmember Petso asked why language was added during this latest update that the buildings may not stand in isolation (page 193), noting it would seem to contribute to the side-lot to side-lot corridor effect down SR-104 and along 100th. Mr. Chave recalled that language was added to clarify that buildings need to be connected to the other buildings, sidewalks and walkways and not standing in isolation. Mr. Taraday Packet Page 308 of 787 recalled that was added to clarify other language. Councilmember Petso asked why that was desirable, to have buildings connected along the stretch. Mr. Chave clarified it was not buildings physically connected wall to wall, the intent was connectivity between the buildings such as walkways, pathways, connected drives, etc. He suggested clarifying the language if that was not clear. Council President Buckshnis said having the amenity space stratified is great, referring to downtown Lake Oswego. She asked whether there was an art aspect to the amenity space. Mr. Chave answered language could be included that encourages art as part of the amenity space or added to the score sheet. Council President Buckshnis relayed she understood the concept of not having buildings stand in isolation. Mr. Chave commented the concept will fail if there is a building in a large parking and no way to get to from that building to buildings nearby. Council President Buckshnis commented PCC was very successful, they have a 30 year lease but their building is isolated. Mr. Chave agreed it was somewhat isolated but they have areas in front. The intent with redevelopment is things like changes in the paving and trees planted along walkways to identify the location of the walkway. Businesses like PCC may be willing to partner with the City. Council President Buckshnis referred to the old fashioned sidewalks along SR-104. She asked whether the plan includes streetscapes with trees between the roadway and sidewalk to separate pedestrians from the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed yes, referring to the newer scheme in front of Walgreens and the multifamily development near Compass that separates pedestrians from the roadway. Councilmember Johnson commented last week the Council authorized the SR-104 which has a Westgate emphasis. She asked how the results of the Westgate Transportation Study will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the SR-104 study will occur late 2014/early 2015. By that time she assumed the code would be adopted along with the minor changes to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will then come back for review by the Planning Board, Transportation Committee and City Council and elements will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan via the Transportation Element or other plans such as the Streetscape Plan. Any potential code changes could also be adopted at that time. Councilmember Johnson commented it was important for the public to understand the two will eventually be connected. Councilmember Johnson commented the purpose and intent of the Westgate code calls for designing a landscape emphasis at the primary intersection of SR-104 & 100th/9th. Regardless of whether the existing 20-foot setback is retained or the proposed 12-foot setback adopted, she asked how the landscape emphasis will be achieved at the intersection. Mr. Chave commented the additional stepback which will result in the buildings being quite low. It may be worthwhile to add language regarding signature plaza spaces and water features in addition to landscaping. He agreed that was an important concept, visitors should have a feeling that they have arrived somewhere. Councilmember Johnson observed SR-104 has a natural environment notable for tall stands of evergreen trees. She asked how the green factors score sheet could be modified if there was a desire for greater emphasis on native trees. Mr. Chave responded one of the reasons for the protected slopes was due to the location of the large evergreens. An option would be to increase the points in the table for native vegetation. There is a significant bonus for protecting existing trees. Councilmember Johnson observed the bonus is 1 for bio-retention, .8 for protecting large existing trees and .1 for native. She suggested increasing the bonus for native trees. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the protected slopes and the emphasis on protecting trees in general; the bonus could be increased for protecting native species. Packet Page 309 of 787 Councilmember Bloom observed the proposal was to allow 4 stories on the Bartell property with a 12- foot setback and an additional 5 feet in height would be allowed for 15,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed the building could not subdivided below 15,000 square feet of retail space for the life of building. She asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Chave said it would need to be provided upfront and the City sees all tenant improvements; any tenant improvement that would divide the space below 15,000 square feet would be denied. Mr. Taraday advised there would likely be something recorded against the title of any property taking advantage of the 15,000 square foot height bonus to create a permanent record on the title that so all future permit applications would be reviewed in light of that restriction. Councilmember Bloom observed commercial mixed use was allowed on all properties, other uses are sprinkled throughout and some quadrants only allow a portion of commercial mixed use for example QFC. There was concern expressed at her Town Hall meeting about a tunnel effect if every property were developed commercial mixed use and located 12 feet from the road. Mr. Chave said the idea of tunnel was the vertical space relative to the horizontal space. He referred to downtown where there is a 60-foot right-of-way, an average of 30 foot building on both sides with no setbacks. At Westgate there is an 80- foot right-of-way, 12-foot setback and 35 foot buildings with the potential of an additional l0-15 feet of height. He summarized in terms of scale to the right-of-way, the buildings in Westgate were similar to the overall proportion of downtown. He did not see that as having a tunnel effect. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was a reason for allowing commercial mixed use on every property when QFC and PCC were not likely to redevelop. Mr. Chave commented there was a misconception about what that means, pointing out QFC, PCC, McDonalds are commercial buildings although they are different shapes and sizes and if they had residential, they would be commercial mixed use. The idea is not one size fits all; commercial mixed use buildings will each look different, especially at the intersection where a stepback is required on a 4-story building. That combined with the design standards that require differentiating the ground floor from the upper floors, the appearance of separate sections even in a larger building, etc. that will interact to mitigate the fear of a tunnel look to the development. Councilmember Bloom commented Mr. Barber, who owns Bartells, was at the Town Hall meeting and was very concerned about the parking. Recalling a conversation she and Councilmember Petso had with Mr. Doherty, Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave, she asked whether the plan could start with the Bartells quadrant, work on that quadrant with Bartells, and do the other quadrants later once the SR-104 transportation study is completed since they are unlikely to redevelop. Ms. Hope responded anything is possible. Her understanding was there has been a deliberative process over 3-4 years to look at all 4 quadrants and how they affect each other. Although each quadrant could be considered separately, there is value in having a plan that works reasonably for all four quadrants and fine-tune it based on development that occurs in one of the quadrants. Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns expressed at the Town Hall meeting included traffic patterns, crossing SR-104 and 100th, parking, ingress and egress, existing parking difficulties at QFC, and driving from QFC to PCC. She summarized pedestrian crossing is not convenient and that is something the SR- 104 study will consider. Ms. Hope responded some of the traffic issues have been studied and it may be that perception is not the same as what is actually proposed. The SR-104 analysis will be done within a few months and a lot of the concerns will be addressed. Councilmember Mesaros observed QFC’s existing parking is 1/475 square feet. He inquired about PCC’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet in the area immediately in front. Most commercial areas have blended/spill over parking. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about Goodwill’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is shared parking. Packet Page 310 of 787 Councilmember Mesaros said he has heard canyon-effect mentioned and appreciated Mr. Chave’s comparison of the right-of-way and buildings in Westgate to downtown. He asked whether the proposed zoning allow would allow 4-story buildings all along the corridor. Mr. Chave identified areas where 4, 3, and 2 story buildings would be allowed, noting it is not a uniform 4 stories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed heights up to 4 stories would be allowed at the cross of the quadrants at Edmonds Way and 100th/9th. Mr. Chave identified 2 sides where 4-story buildings would be allowed and 2 sides where 3-story buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could potentially feel like canyon or tunnel in the center. Mr. Chave did not think so, particularly with the stepback at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the walkability of University Village, recalling the series of roads through University Village in the past. She asked the timeframe for making a decision on this plan. Mr. Chave envisioned Thanksgiving. He feared if a decision was delayed too long, it would take a backseat to the budget. Councilmember Peterson agreed it is not comfortable walk on the sidewalk on SR-104 but the concept via redevelopment in 20-30 years is to create internal walkability and a pedestrian friendly shopping and living experience. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the raised sidewalks in U-Village clearly identify the pedestrian areas. To Councilmember Bloom suggestion to do one quadrant at a time, Councilmember Peterson asked whether that would be a radical change to the Planning Board’s recommendation and require restarting the public process and holding another public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered worst case scenario another public hearing would need to be held to ensure the GMA requirement for public participation was met. As a practical matter, because the other properties are unlikely to redevelop it may not matter whether a plan for the entire area is adopted and tweaked later or only a plan for the quadrant that is likely to develop sooner. Mr. Chave explained it was within the Council discretion to do a phased approach; however, it is unknown what the property owners outside the SR-104 & 100th/9th intersection are considering. The City is limited in what it can do to improve the flow and access until some redevelopment occurs. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there were grant funds available for overpasses between the quadrants. She referred to overpasses in Charlotte. Ms. Hope answered there are no grants available in Washington for that at this time. She agreed connectivity between the quadrants was an important element. Mr. Taraday suggested an overpass could be added to the amenity score sheet for a height bonus; it was more likely to occur that way rather than via grant funding. Council President Buckshnis asked if there was a percentage of residential in the plan. Ms. Hope answered for example residential cannot be on the first floor. Some property owners may prefer office space to commercial. Council President Buckshnis asked how Councilmembers should inform staff of additional incentives. Ms. Hope suggested sending information to staff to allow further research. Council President Buckshnis suggested adding art. Councilmember Johnson observed properties in the Westgate area have varied height limits depending on the location and topography. She asked the Planning Board’s rationale for four stories in the QFC quadrant where there is flat topography. Mr. Chave displayed the height map, explaining there are no slopes in the QFC area but the cemetery separates the site from the surrounding area. Four stories were not allowed in the northeast due to its small size. Councilmember Johnson referred to the intersection analysis done by Jennifer Barnes in June 2013 for the SR-104/100th intersection. She asked Mr. Chave to contrast that analysis with the new transportation Packet Page 311 of 787 study of Westgate with regard to the forecast years, land use assumptions and the scope of work. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Barnes supplemented the analysis in the Transportation Plan where the planning horizon is 2025, analyzing overall volumes, turning movements, levels of service, signalization, etc. The 2015 update will expand the horizon to 2035. The UW’s analysis assumed 4-5 stories; the impact of the current 2-4 story plan will be substantially less. Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Barnes’ analysis was of the intersection; the transportation study will consider other components. Mr. Chave agreed, especially the SR-104 study. Councilmember Bloom referred page 7c regarding building not standing in isolation, specifically the last sentence that states, will achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by allowing such an exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking shall not be located between the building and the public street in any instance. She asked whether the eventual goal was no parking in front of QFC or PCC and for buildings to be located up to the street. Mr. Chave answered the intent is to form the spaces for parking and pedestrian circulation in the area internal to the quadrant by the placement of the buildings. The old strip mall model is parking lot in front with buildings set back with a sign identifying the tenants. When buildings are closer to the sidewalk, they provide a presence at the street front. Councilmember Bloom observed the goal of the plan was for all buildings to be close to the street. Mr. Chave answered all the buildings would not be at the street because the property configuration of some would not allow the buildings to be placed at the street. The general principle is to have the buildings at the street. If the buildings are not at the street, there will be limited ability to create interconnected spaces, aisles and driveways behind the buildings. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any accommodation made for bike trails. Mr. Chave answered they are not precluded, they could be provided as part of the connections but would be limited by space. The emphasis is along 9th because it is a challenge to provide a bike trail to the east. The north and east connectors in the City’s existing bike plans are further north. The language regarding internal circulation could be expanded to emphasize bikes. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the plan regarding units less than 900 square feet, a percentage allowed to be over 1600 square and encouraging affordable housing. She emphasize that was not affordable housing; affordable housing was when a person paid no more than 1/3 of their income for housing. As it appeared there was interest in providing affordable housing at Westgate, she asked why actual affordable housing was not included in the plan. Mr. Chave explained the City did not have an affordable housing program; there was no zoning regulation to require affordable housing in a development. He and Ms. Hope have discussed developing that type of program but it would take a couple years including working with the Housing Authority and the new Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) of Snohomish County. If such a program were developed, it could be added to the Westgate plan; another potential location is nodes on Hwy 99 that are close to transit. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson referred to the proposal to maintain 15,000 square feet for the life of a building and observed that would preclude the old Albertsons from being dividing to provide space for a pet store as well as prohibit the former Safeway from being developed as Salish Crossing. She questioned whether that was a good idea. Mr. Chave answered the developer would have to be seeking the fourth story for that requirement to be imposed. Second, it would only require 15,000 square feet; for example if the old Albertsons had 20,000 square feet, they could designate 15,000 for PCC and the remainder for other stores. Mayor Earling suggested for future study session discussions, staff be seated at the table. Packet Page 312 of 787 Councilmember Petso advised she would email staff with a number of requests for future presentations. She suggested deleting the provision that allow using a portion of the sidewalk in the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, etc. Although currently allowed downtown, it would not make sense on SR-104. Council President Buckshnis commented it may not be appropriate on SR-104 but it could be appropriate in other areas in Westgate. Councilmember Petso suggested a requirement that the first floor be devoted to retail and not parking. As examples she referred to the Compass Apartments where parking is provided in back under the units and a building in Shoreline near Costco where there most of the ground floor is parking. She feared turning a vibrant business district into parking holding up residential. Council President Buckshnis referred to the parking configuration allowed downtown. Councilmember Petso answered there is already a walkable pedestrian area downtown. She relayed comments about why the City wants to create a second walkable pedestrian area. She wanted to ensure Westgate retained legitimate commercial uses on the first floor. Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking on 9th in front of the cemetery, assuming it was employee parking. She asked whether consideration had been given to offsite parking for employees to better accommodate customer parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is also commuter parking for people taking the bus because there are no time limits on the parking in that area. Council President Buckshnis clarified smaller units can be affordable housing. She envisioned a walkable neighborhood with residential away from SR-104. Councilmember Bloom pointed out affordable housing has a specific definition, there is no guarantee a 900 square foot unit is affordable. She agreed with Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion to have residential setback from SR-104 but that was not what this plan proposed. The plan allows commercial mixed use everywhere and only one of the residential uses, rowhouses, was strictly residential; everything else is mixed use including the live-work. She preferred to designate where residential is allowed and that it be setback and private. This plan allows buildings up to 4 stories of mixed use at the Bartell and QFC mixed use with 3 stories of residential and 1 floor of commercial and parking to accommodate the uses. Council President Buckshnis did not support designating where specific building types could be located. Councilmember Peterson referred to the presentation by Mark Smith, AHA, who pointed out there are a number of striations to affordable housing including what the private sector provides and what the City could provide via an affordable housing program. Mr. Smith indicated Edmonds is woefully inadequate in both regards; the affordable housing the private sector provides is typically smaller units. Encouraging smaller units in Westgate and throughout the City is an excellent way for the private sector to provide affordable housing. If housing was restricted to specific areas such as rowhouses that are private, it automatically increases the footprint and the price and would eliminate the sector of affordable housing that can be provided by the private sector. The more the location of housing is restricted, the worse the opportunity for providing any type of affordable housing. This type of development is needed throughout the City; there are opportunities in Westgate, downtown, Hwy 99 and Five Corners. Councilmember Petso agreed small units are not affordable housing and recalled Mr. Smith saying that. There may be less construction costs but the smaller size does not make them affordable housing particularly for families who cannot live in a small unit. She relayed the public wants to identify the places at Westgate where they are willing to accept taller building and residential units and not interfere with other areas at Westgate; that is not what this plan does. 11. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. Packet Page 313 of 787 Councilmember Bloom asked how the Finance Committee meeting could be televised. Councilmember Peterson explained their meeting would be held before the work session. If all Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting and it is televised, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the items could just be discussed at a full Council meeting. She supported having two work sessions per month. However, during the budget process it was her understanding the Council President found it difficult to schedule agenda items and she anticipated it would be even more difficult if action would not be taken at two meetings per month. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s comment regarding scheduling in the final quarter of year. She experienced that last year and recalled Councilmember Peterson chastising the Council with the phrase, “we’re running out of Tuesdays in this calendar year.” If the Council chooses to change the format, she suggested beginning in January. Council President Buckshnis recalled last year there was a closed record review that consumed a great deal of the Council’s time. She has worked with Mayor and Directors on the extended agenda and preferred to try the proposed process beginning in October. She reiterated her support for retaining the Finance Committee, pointing out three of four cities have a Finance Committee and it is important to have policy discussion and long term planning in a committee meeting. Mayor Earling advised the discussion will continue next week. Council President Buckshnis relayed the agenda item next week will include action. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE Planning Manager Rob Chave provided background on the Westgate code discussion: • Public hearing on August 4, 2014 • Staff has reviewed the hearing record and follow-up discussion on the draft code. As part of that review, staff suggested: o Make sure that the code is consistent with the expressed intent o Remove inconsistencies • Approximately a dozen issues were combined into seven discussion topics: 1. Commercial requirements • Clarifying the various building types to include commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-work Not ground floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor 8. Assuring commercial space • Adjusted the building type location diagram (page 8) to be more consistent with the overall intended commercial mixed use chapter 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. Packet Page 314 of 787 • “Commercial mixed use” is not described as a “commercial block” He displayed diagrams illustrating where different building types are allowed under the current code and under the revised code. The biggest change is the two residential types. The original UW diagrams showed residential along SR-104, basically where McDonald’s is. Residential building types generally are now focused along 100th at the north and south extremes of Westgate and an opportunity for residential along the slope. He displayed drawings illustrating: • Adjustments to two residential building types to limit them to secondary commercial locations (removed option for residential only from QFC owned property) • Adjustment to the commercial mixed use building type (the principal commercial type) to allow it throughout the Westgate zone district 9. Amenity vs. open space • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area with 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirements. Preserving slopes can count as open space but is not amenity space. • Note: no other zone in the city has anything like these requirements He explained the difference between amenity space, open space and setbacks. Setbacks provide locations for buildings; it does not describe what happens within the setback. Typically in large setback in commercial zones in the City there is a landscape strip along the street, then a parking area, not open space or amenity space. 10. Parking standards • Remember these are minimums • Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900 square feet. This will achieve two goals: o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) o Provide an added incentive for smaller dwelling units • Note: 900 square foot units are encouraged for affordability purposes (UW recommended) • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square feet • Existing groceries have 1 space per 350 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour, much less during other parts of day. • Commercial uses within an area may have different peak use periods • Current usage assumes a shared parking area • Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely; many at 1/500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdiction. • Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units. 11. Large-format retail • Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores): 1. Added bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (page 37) Packet Page 315 of 787 2. 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 (page 6/7). If the bonus is obtained for large format retail space, the space cannot be subdivided into small retail in the future. 3. Intent is for existing large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownerships and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment. Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that qualify for height bonus. 12. Building Design • 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. This includes a 12-foot minimum ceiling height for the first floor commercial space in the commercial building types • One further change is needed – acknowledge outdoor uses such as outdoor dining spaces Mr. Chave displayed diagrams in the code for the BD zones downtown. 13. Traffic and setbacks • While traffic study shows no overall impact on levels of service, any further development will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) • 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-140 study will provide additional recommendations for right-of-way improvements. Improvements for connecting the Westgate quadrants will be part of future plans. Councilmember Bloom asked what the 12-foot setback is from. Mr. Chave answered from the right-of- way. The pavement is within right-of-way as well as some of sidewalk area, basically the property line adjourning the right-of-way. Councilmember Bloom referred to the area of SR-104 west of PCC where there is a 12-foot setback from SR-104. Mr. Chave clarified the 12-foot setback is from the right-of-way; generally the sidewalk is within the right-of-way. In most instances, the 12-foot setback would start at the back of the sidewalk. Councilmember Bloom asked the width of the sidewalk in that area. Mr. Chave answered it varies between 5 and 8 feet; most of it is within the right-of-way. He summarized the 12-foot sidewalk is not from the paved edge, it is typically from the sidewalk edge. Councilmember Bloom explained she walked on the sidewalk along SR-104 in that area of Westgate with a friend a few weeks ago and found it scary and uncomfortable because the sidewalk is so narrow. She observed a 12-foot setback from that would not be not very far. For comparison, she walked the Lynnwood Crossroads development at 196th and Hwy 99. The sidewalks area 12 feet wide, the corner store is setback approximately 30 feet and another store to the west is setback 30 feet from the sidewalk with a drive-through. Although Hwy 99 is a busy road, walking there was not nearly as uncomfortable due to the 12-foot sidewalk and the 30-foot setback. She summarized a 12-foot setback from SR-104 with 5-6 foot sidewalks is completely inadequate. She encouraged Councilmembers to walk in that area. Mr. Chave commented the lower multi-family building near Compass has a typically arrangement for walking, a planted area between the roadway and the sidewalk with trees. He commented the location of buildings is much less important than the interface between the walkway and the travel way. Councilmember Bloom said she was unable to walk as far east as Compass because of her discomfort with the proximity to the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed a narrow sidewalk adjoining the travel way is not desirable. Councilmember Bloom calculated if there is a 12-foot setback and 6 feet is used for a sidewalk, Packet Page 316 of 787 the building will be 6 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Chave explained there is typically 6-8 feet between travel way and the edge of the right-of-way; frequently that is where is the sidewalk is located. Under this proposal there would be an additional 12 feet, providing 18-20 feet from the travel way. Councilmember Bloom observed if the sidewalk is widened to 12 feet, 6 feet of the 12 foot setback would be consumed. Mr. Chave explained the intent is provide enough setback to allow separation from the walking area and the travel way. As redevelopment occurs, there would be a green planting area/buffer between the travel way and the sidewalk. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the current setback. Mr. Chave advised it is 20 feet. Councilmember Mesaros observed the proposed parking is 1/500 square feet. He asked about the current parking ratio at QFC. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet. The parking ratio on QFC’s property is lower than 1/350 square feet, more like 1/370 square feet. The 1/350 square feet was calculated by counting the parking that is typically used by QFC. Councilmember Petso thanked Mr. Chave and staff for working on these changes, advising several of her questions have been addressed by the changes. As she still has a large number of issues, she will schedule a meeting with staff. She asked for a copy of tonight’s presentation. She referred to the building type diagram and expressed concern that the commercial mixed use (formerly commercial block) was the only type of building allowed on several parcels such as Taco Bell, PCC, QFC, Key Bank, Starbucks, FedEx, Ivars and Goodwill. She noted some other Bartell Drugs are doing lot line to lot line mixed use with the Bartells on the bottom. She expressed concerned with requiring so many properties to build the commercial block building. Mr. Chave answered it is not required, it is an option. Councilmember Petso referred to the Goodwill parcel, pointing out no other type of building was allowed. Mr. Chave agreed that may be true for Goodwill. Councilmember Petso reiterated that was true for Taco Bell, PCC, QFC, Key Bank, Starbucks, FedEx, Ivars and Goodwill. She offered to meet with staff to discuss an alternative. There are many services provided at Westgate that that building type does not provide, for instance a gas station. Mr. Chave advised the gas station is further east. She inquired about a drive-through in a lot line to lot line building. Mr. Chave explained in this proposal a commercial mixed use building is not lot line to lot line due to the 15% amenity and 15% open space requirement Councilmember Petso commented for Type 7 buildings, decks count as open space; however, the definition of open space in the code is unobstructed from the ground up. Mr. Chave explained the 15% amenity space is required; if a developer goes above 15% they may be able to use some of it as open space. Councilmember Petso assumed lot line to lot line would be a possibility with the exception of the setback. Councilmember Petso observed the rational for a different parking standard was to encourage more units because that would be more affordable. She recalled Mr. Smith stating that smaller unit are not necessarily affordable housing. Mr. Chave explained there are direct and indirect methods of housing affordability. Most of what Edmonds does is indirect because the City does not have a formal affordable housing mechanism. The direct methods used in the past include supporting the Housing Authority when they purchased buildings, Section 8 housing. Indirect methods are reducing costs such as reducing parking or smaller units. He agreed indirect methods do not directly result in affordable housing but the goal was to reduce the overall cost factor for housing. As Mr. Smith mentioned, by partnering with the AHA, they may be able to provide some of the necessary support to pursue affordable housing. A key element is tracking, monitoring and enforcing affordable units/rents. Councilmember Petso expressed concerned with simply providing smaller units. Mr. Chave commented another reason for smaller units is demographic changes such as aging households and younger people Packet Page 317 of 787 looking for a different type of housing. That is one of the reasons reduced parking for smaller units potentially makes sense. Councilmember Petso expressed support for the 12-foot minimum ceiling height and asked if the minimum ceiling height downtown was 15 feet. Mr. Chave answered only in the retail core. Councilmember Petso observed additional building height would be allowed for greater than a 12-foot ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered the extra height is only allowed if building includes a large format retail, a minimum of 15,000 square feet. If she accepts that the height limit was calculated to be appropriate for the surrounding residences Councilmember Petso asked whether it would it be inappropriate if additional height were allowed. Mr. Chave answered the building heights were substantially the surrounding heights except in the southeast quadrant. If the Council was willing to allow the additional height in other locations, the southeast quadrant could be excluded. The size of the properties in that area makes it questionable that a large format retail could be built in that location. In the other locations the building heights are nowhere near the surrounding slopes. Councilmember Petso recalled a development agreement does not provide a way to restrict the future use of a building. Mr. Chave answered the code can specify once the bonus has been accept and the minimum 15,000 square foot space provided that subdividing is prohibited. Council President Buckshnis pointed out the Compass apartments are not point based incentive zoning; it was a contract rezone. The Westgate Plan is predetermined point based incentive zoning for bonuses which Edmonds has never utilized before. Mr. Chave said Compass was not a contract rezone; the zoning was proposed by a developer and certain things were required to achieve an additional 5 feet in height. Council President Buckshnis pointed out that development was not form-based code that addresses streetscape, landscaping, etc. Mr. Chave recalled the setbacks for the Compass development were substantially smaller such as 4 feet. In response to Councilmember Petso’s concern, Council President Buckshnis pointed out live-work, stacked and courtyards are allowed on the corner of the Goodwill property. She assured this will not result in a Compass type development because the City has never before utilizing point driven incentives. Mr. Chave pointed out the setbacks are larger than Compass and Compass did not have any requirement for open space or amenity space. Council President Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Bloom that a 12- foot setback is not sufficient and she preferred to retain the 20 foot setback. Mr. Chave explained an option would be to retain the 20-foot setback until the SR-104 study was completed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Bloom that it is an uncomfortable area to walk. For next weeks’ discussion, she asked for a drawing of where things would be in the right-of-way. Mr. Chave offered to provide cross sections. Councilmember Peterson asked how much space is needed in the setback for a travel lane or parking. He was concerned if the setback was too large, there would be a sidewalk between the highway and a drive- through. Mr. Chave recalled language in the proposed code that does not allow drive-through between building and street. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the setback would be green space. Mr. Chave explained recent development on SR-104 in Westgate was with a 20-foot setback. Developers typically do not build a building with a 20-foot setback; buildings are typically built further onto the property with a parking lot between the building and the sidewalk and travel way because the 20-foot setback pushes them there. The only requirement the City has is a 5-foot planting strip. Retaining the 20-foot setback in the interim would allow the 15% amenity space and 15% open space to be accomplished in that space. Councilmember Peterson asked whether open space can be in the setback. Mr. Chave answered it can. Packet Page 318 of 787 Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas’ and Bloom’s comments about walking on SR-104. He often walks from his home at Pt. Edwards to Esperance at 238th & 84th approximately 3 miles. He agreed it was much safer at the Compass development. The proposal will improve the existing situation in the Westgate area. He noted it was particularly bad west of the commercial area on SR-104 along the Woodway border. Councilmember Bloom referred to Nick Echelbarger’s presentation to the Economic Development Commission about Salish Crossing. One Commissioner expressed concern about spillover parking; Mr. Echelbarger said Salish Crossing has 4.66 spaces/1,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it was a huge parking area. Councilmember Bloom relayed Mr. Echelbarger’s comment that Lynnwood Crossroads had 3.9 spaces/1000 square feet. She expressed concern that the parking would not be sufficient if residential was added to the existing 1/350 square feet. Mr. Chave advised the residential parking standards would be in addition to the commercial parking standards. Councilmember Bloom was also concerned with traffic egress and ingress, anticipating it would be worse with buildings closer to the street. Councilmember Bloom reported she visited the Compass development today to inquire why their commercial space is not completely full; one space is occupied and two are empty. She learned the three spaces were built to be live-work spaces but the City does not allow it to be used as live-work space. The tenant, Farmers, had to do a great deal of tenant improvements to create office space. The broker raised many issues associated with residential/retail close to SR-104 including traffic speeds, difficulty getting in and out, signage not visible from the street and venting is an issue for a bakery or restaurant. Mr. Chave agreed office space is difficult to convert to commercial space. Councilmember Bloom relayed the broker’s indication that even if the space could be vented properly, smells would cause problems for residents. Councilmember Bloom clarified she was not opposed to residential at Westgate but she has not seen combined residential and commercial work well in Edmonds due to contradiction between residential and commercial spaces. Residential requires privacy; there are no setbacks proposed for privacy. She believes the concept of residential sharing parking with retail is a fantasy that will not work. It appears the entire space could potentially become commercial mixed use. She anticipated developers will do whatever maximizes their profit. Her office is located in a building with below ground retail; the landlord said he made enough money on the condos that he did not need to fill the office spaces. She was concerned with filling the entire area with mixed use and considering it a destination when the destination is the waterfront and downtown. The comments Councilmember Petso provided today excerpted from approximately 20 emails from citizens reflect those same concerns. She recommended the Council discuss the reality of how this will work and suggested locating residential in a more private, specific area rather than giving a developer free rein to place commercial and residential in the same place. Councilmember Petso recalled amenity spaces must be public; she asked whether the amenity space could be elevated such as on the roof of a parking garage. Mr. Chave answered he did not believe so but would need to check. It is not allowed to be on the rooftop such as a roof garden. Councilmember Petso said a courtyard in front of a building such as the Hazel Miller Plaza is a more valuable amenity. Mr. Chave advised it could be on top of a submerged parking garage. A garage deck is when the top of the garage is at ground level or below. Councilmember Petso inquired about the ability to construct a building lot line to lot line. She observed there is a 12-foot setback from the two major streets and other than that it is the fire code setback unless the property abuts a residential area. Mr. Chave answered amenity space and open space must be provided. Councilmember Petso observed decks count as open space and amenity space can be on top of a parking garage. Councilmember Peterson pointed out Mr. Chave already said amenity space could not be Packet Page 319 of 787 on top of a parking garage. Councilmember Petso pointed out amenity space could be a deck on a subterranean parking garage. Mr. Chave clarified that would be ground level amenity space. Councilmember Petso asked whether private balconies could provide open space. Mr. Chave answered he did not think so but he would verify that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the 15% amenity space was public space. Mr. Chave answered amenity space is defined as publicly accessible and usable by the public, it is not necessarily publicly owned. An example is the seating area outside Starbucks. Mayor Earling relayed Agenda Items 12 and 13 are being deleted. 11. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AFFECTING THE CG ZONES IN THE HIGHWAY 99 AREA Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommendations focused on two issues: 1. 2-floor commercial requirement before residential units can be added 2. Parking standards He reviewed goals for the update: • Remove obstacles to redevelopment • Encourage retention of commercial uses while encouraging more residential uses along Hwy 99 – develop a “community” • Take advantage of transit and other development scenarios developing along the corridor in other jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett) With regard to the commercial requirement, he explained: • Planning Board looked at two options with the focus on removing the requirement for two floors of commercial space: o No commercial requirement o Minimum requirement (e.g. equivalent of 1 floor of commercial across the site) • Planning Board recommended no requirement with a review after one year of experience With regard to parking standards, he explained: • Planning Board looked at two options: o Single blended rate of two-tiered parking requirement based on access to Hwy 99 (1/400 square feet or 1/600 square feet) o A parking study option was also considered, where a project-specific study could be approved in lieu of the specified standards • The Planning Board recommended the two-tiered parking system and the study option He advised the Council will have a public hearing on the proposed revision to the development code. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINTUES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about Shoreline and Lynnwood’s parking requirements. Mr. Chave answered Lynnwood required 1 parking space per unit for residential in their Hwy 99 Mixed Use nodes and 3/1,000 square feet for commercial. He was uncertain whether Shoreline had any parking requirements unique to Hwy 99. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked there is already overflow into the neighborhoods from businesses on Hwy 99. Packet Page 320 of 787 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE REAMINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING/CSED DIRECTOR INTERVIEW MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2014 C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2014 D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #209642 THROUGH #209752 DATED JULY 24, 2014 FOR $886,293.48 AND CLAIM CHECKS #209753 THROUGH #209871 DATED JULY 31, 2014 FOR $947,955.28. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #61117 FOR 513.35 AND PAYROLL CHECKS #61118 THROUGH #61119 FOR $598.09 E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SARAH RICHARD ($156.00) ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING/AUDIT EXIT CONFERENCE MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2014 Councilmember Johnson requested the minutes reflect that she was present at the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one members of the public present who wished to provide comment. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT, ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND ZONING MAP CHANGE TO IMPLEMENT A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the public hearing is an opportunity to hear about the project, ideas and background as well as an opportunity for the public to provide testimony. There is no action scheduled on this agenda item tonight. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board’s proposal includes three distinct actions: 1. Comprehensive Plan text amendment (policy language) 2. Establishment of new zone (Westgate Mixed Use) 3. Rezoning of commercial properties in the Westgate area to WMU He reviewed the proposal’s features: • No expansion of the existing commercial area Packet Page 321 of 787 • Additional intensity of development within the commercial area • “Hybrid zone” mixture of traditional regulations (uses, setbacks) and form-based elements not regulated in standards zones (building types and locations, requirements for amenities and open space) • Mix of building heights dependent on location and topography • “Green Factor” landscape system • Additional protection for surrounding slopes and trees/vegetation • Supporting traffic analysis done reflecting higher level of development than currently proposed found no reduction in level of service (LOS) He displayed maps showing the boundaries of the Westgate study area and the existing zoning (BN- Neighborhood Business, BC-Community Business and BC-EW-Community Business-Edmonds Way). During the Planning Board’s process, a resident identified a property with an odd configuration. Staff researched the zoning map and found it was an error that had been repeated since an old mylar was converted to digital mapping. He identified the actual property boundary which was straight. The Planning Board recommended the mapping error not continue to be replicated; all future maps will have the straightened boundary. He identified the area that would be rezoned WMU. With regard to why Westgate, Mr. Chave explained the Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) white paper identifies economic development-related support for the Westgate Plan; he identified several other issues and trends that support the Westgate Plan: • Growth – Growth and development is a fact of life in the Puget Sound Region, including Edmonds. The choice made in Edmonds has been to focus growth in existing commercial/multi- family areas rather than expand those areas or rezone adjacent areas. • Demography – The population is aging and needs new housing opportunities (e.g. for different life stages and housing needs/desires). Current housing choices in Edmonds can be improved by offering more variety and styles. Different housing types also enable the younger generation to locate in the community instead of moving out. • Environment – Local communities have relatively constrained options for dealing with issues such as transportation and climate change. Land use, such as encouraging transit-oriented development and increasing the mix of uses in compact, defined area can help transportation choices – and the environment. This was a key point made by Forterra, a partner in the project. Mr. Chave explained the initial phase of the process focused on public workshops and meetings, culminating in in a report and proposal by a team consisting of: • City • University of Washington, Green Futures Lab • Cascade Land Conservancy (now Forterra) Mr. Chave explained one of Forterra’s missions is to encourage protection of open spaces; open space cannot be protected without also making urban areas more attractive. Their principles include exemplary commercial centers that are complete, compact and connected; creating a sense of place. Before the design started, the team did the following: • Prepared citizen survey • Conduced site surveys of land uses • Surveyed of existing amenities • Conduced parking counts • Determined Walking distances and conditions • Mapped study results Packet Page 322 of 787 • Analyzed user friendliness • Did a Neighborhood Identity Comparison One of the premises of the process was thoughtful design can make change for the better. The participatory public process included: • Community survey by mail and online (October 2010 – March 2011) • Design workshop (March 2011) • Alternative preferences Forum (May 2011) He displayed a sample drawing from a workshop. He explained the difference between traditional zoning codes, design guidelines and form-based code: • Traditional zoning code regulate and emphasize the separation of uses • Design guidelines modulate building facades and materials • Form-based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private space to support users and foster local character. Through this process the UW identified goals to leverage synergies: • Create mixed use walkable compact commercial center • Improve connections for bicycles and pedestrians • Enhance Westgate identity and visibility • Prioritize amenities spaces • Promote civic and private investment • Incorporate sustainable features • Regulate building placement and form • Create variety of housing choices and retail options and parking options The UW plan regulated the following in Westgate: 1. Amenity spaces o Common areas o Amenity space o Trees o Stormwater management 2. Required building lines o UW Plan focused development at the intersection, buildings as close as possible to the street 3. Streetscape Standards o Internal circulation drive o SR-104 4. Building types o Rowhouse o Live work o Stacked dwelling o Loft dwelling o Courtyard residential o Side court o Commercial block 5. Street Frontage Types o Define how buildings meet the street 6. Sustainable and green features o Based largely on Seattle’s Green Factor program 7. Development requirements and options Packet Page 323 of 787 o Menu of options, includes minimums for all buildings He displayed a diagram prepared by the UW team of the Westgate study area with photographs of features and their possible locations. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board’s work focused on reviewing the UW/Cascade product and producing Comprehensive Plan and Code amendments that would fit within the City’s regulatory system and produce a result acceptable to the community. The Planning Board held three public hearing during the approximately two year process as well as numerous work sessions. The current proposal is a product of that review and includes a numbers of changes made by the Planning Board. He displayed and reviewed several photographs of buildings and uses and spaces created behind buildings. He reviewed the key changes made by the Planning Board: • The plan’s emphasis has been shifted from the adjoining streets/highways to the four quadrants that make up the Westgate commercial area. • The overall approach is now a hybrid approach combining traditional and form-based elements. Provides for opportunity while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring that all buildings be pushed up against sidewalk lines. Nonetheless, open space and amenity space is still required, as well as pedestrian and non- motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. • Instead of development up to 5 stories, buildings are now capped in most places at 2 or 3 stories, with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories only where the nearby slopes are higher, or where no residence are nearby. • Street setbacks have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. • The intersection of SR-104and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement radiating from the intersection to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. He displayed a map of the Westgate topography, identifying the surrounding steep slopes, noting most of the steep slopes are located on commercially zoned properties. He displayed a map identifying the height of the slopes as well as a map that was prepared by analyzing where various building heights would be visible from surrounding properties. He displayed a map that identifies height limits: o Parcels eligible for potential 4th story height bonus o Parcels limited to 2 stories in height o Parcels limited to 3 stories in height. Ms. Hope commended the community for the public input received during the process to date. She reviewed post-hearing discussions and potential action dates: • August 19: Comprehensive Plan text amendment and potential adoption of Westgate text along with already-approved 2014 Parks and Cultural Plan amendments • August 26: New Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone and rezone of Westgate commercial properties Councilmember Bloom referred to the parking requirement, 1 space for every 500 square feet of commercial and asked the square footage of existing buildings such as PCC. Mr. Chave advised staff could provide that information at a future meeting. He was confident that PCC provided more parking than was required which is typical of many businesses. Parking requirements are minimums; businesses typically provide parking in accordance with what they expect the need will be. He offered to confirm the amount of parking PCC provides and the square footage of the building. Councilmember Bloom asked whether QFC, Bartell, Walgreens and Goodwill provided more parking than required. Mr. Chave was not certain, pointing many of those parking lots are shared or blended parking as different stores have Packet Page 324 of 787 different peak times which is part of the rationale for a blended parking rate. Identifying minimum parking throughout the development is more appropriate than identifying parking according to each use. The difficulty with establishing parking by use is uses change and parking requirements by use vary widely. In the past when a use that required more parking replaced another use downtown, the only option was to lease parking on an adjacent property. He summarized that is an awkward process and a barrier to a healthy mix of uses. Councilmember Bloom requested the existing parking spaces and building square footages, relaying her concern there would not be enough parking because the parking lots are already full. Councilmember Bloom asked whether amenity space was the same thing as open space. Mr. Chave answered they were different; amenity spaces are active spaces. An example of open spaces is the slopes, typically not areas where the public would walk. He noted sometimes open space can be amenity space; there is some overlap but they are not the same thing. The code also includes trees and greening of the parking lots, walkways and roads within the development. It is not quantified as a percentage of the parking area but the concept is trees that frame walkways and driveways so the result is an open space feature. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that open space could be defined as a landscaping feature. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom commented the amenities in the code depend on whether it is commercial or residential but central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area and the requirement is 15% amenity space. She asked whether a roof deck could be amenity space as well as open space. Mr. Chave answered yes, for some uses primarily residential. A green roof cannot be counted as an amenity for a commercial block building. Residential buildings may not want residential amenities at the street front; a roof top deck would be an attractive feature for residents and provides a sense of privacy in the development. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that amenity space and open space are different and there is a requirement for 15% amenity and 15% open space. Mr. Chave answered it is complicated; there is a requirement for 15% amenity space throughout the development. Open space is slightly different, sometimes the open space will be equivalent or overlap the amenity space but sometimes the open space is above the 15% such as the slopes. Councilmember Bloom read from the proposed code that the open space is not required to be usable where buildings back up to steep topography. Mr. Chave responded that provision is only for residential building types and does not apply to commercial block buildings. Councilmember Petso asked for confirmation that the amenity space can be entirely private. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Petso provided an example of a commercial block building with 2 floors of residential that provided 15% in a green roof open only to residents. She asked whether that would be allowed. Mr. Chave answered theoretically it would be but he did not think that would occur because of all the other requirements such as setbacks, green factor requirements, etc. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding there is no setback other than the 12 feet at the front of the property line. Mr. Chave agreed. Council President Buckshnis commented design standards in the code will not result in a big box building. Mr. Chave agreed he did not see that happening given the green factor and the green spaces. Council President Buckshnis commented form-based code creates nice, livable areas with specific design that fit the area, not just big boxes. Mr. Chave answered form-based code considers the relationship between the building, the relationship to the street fronts and parking, landscaping, linkages, etc. Council President Buckshnis asked how the SR-104 study will be included. Mr. Chave answered that study will address the public right-of-way; this plan is internal to development. The interface will be Packet Page 325 of 787 important; the SR-104 study will provide guidance regarding how the right-of-way should be developed in Westgate as well as along the entire corridor. He summarized the SR-104 study was complimentary but was not contingent. Council President Buckshnis opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mike Schindler, Edmonds, Economic Development Commissioner, encouraged the Council to keep an open mind and respectfully consider the Westgate Plan. He acknowledged no plan is perfect and members of the EDC went back and forth on some things in the Plan. He was impressed by the collective input from the community, experts, and studies. To the question of why do anything in Westgate, he explained this plan gives the City an opportunity to be strategic and thoughtful in planning for growth. The plan packages some of the best features of downtown such as walkability, a destination and transportation but adds new things such as form-based code. Although he loves Edmonds the way it is, he supports this opportunity to improve and to add to the City’s long term sustainability. This is an opportunity to create a gateway as well as a secondary designation to downtown. The Plan provides structure and incentive; the current development in Westgate, a pass-through destination, is the result of not having a plan. He encouraged the Council to be part of something that will contribute to long term human and financial benefit as well as sustainability for the City. Careen Nordling-Rubenkonig, Edmonds, expressed her support for the Westgate Plan as endorsed by the EDC and approved by the Planning Board. As a recently appointed Planning Board Member, she thanked the other Planning Board Members for the years they have spent researching and deliberating this approach to future development of Westgate. She found this new approach necessary; recalling as a teen exploring the Edmonds waterfront on her bike. At that time there was a chicken processing plant and mink farm to the south; the changes that have occurred in that area have been wonderful and many people know Edmonds for that area. She acknowledged the regrettable decision to fill much of the marsh. Now is the time for Westgate to evolve, to deepen diversity and strengthen how it functions. She looked forward to watching it mature into a more bountiful area and continue to serve Edmonds residents. John Rubenkonig, Edmonds, Economic Development Commissioner, explained they discovered Edmonds when they ran out of money 35 years ago on their honeymoon and returned 10 years later to raise their family. Edmonds is a unique place but its problems are not unique; many jurisdictions suffer from a lack of economic development. The Westgate area has not been utilized as effectively as could be. This plan seeks to change that by allowing more and variety uses, more public/pedestrian spaces, LID development, a variation in the built appearance of the space and may allow a slight increase in some places. The Planning Board made some excellent pragmatic adjustments to the plan as they listened to citizens’ concerns. The Westgate Plan has been researched and studied at multiple hearings and public meetings over the past four years. He appreciated the public involvement and expressed his support for the plan. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed his concern that because Washington State Department of Transportation does not have any plans to rectify the existing traffic problems they are just ignored. He referred to the transportation analysis, recalling the original plan was to reduce the width of the travel lanes on 100th. He feared the motorized public who currently use the Westgate area will go elsewhere if it is inconvenient or congested due to increased density. He also feared increasing the density will increase property values which will cause the grocery stores to leave. He was also concerned there was no setback requirement from adjacent zones. He referred to the March 12, 2014 Planning Board minutes where the chair agreed traffic needs to be addressed and Board Member Stewart commented adding more residential will increase traffic volumes on SR-104 and 100th and the City is putting its head in the sand if it thinks traffic congestion would not be an increasing problem as redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave’s response to Packet Page 326 of 787 the Planning Board was the City does not control SR-104. Mr. Hertrich recommended traffic problems be addressed. Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking as a citizen, requested the Council pass the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan text and the ECC to create a new Westgate Mixed Use zone. She noted there are times when it is necessary to pivot from time-honored systems to new ideas; one of those times was in the late 40s when GIs returning from the war required a major change in the housing, likely a difficult transition for the GIs to move from a farming culture to master planned communities, likely as difficult as changes that are needed today in housing. She encouraged the Council to look forward and prepare for new living standards and housing to meet the younger generation as well as for older generations who want to downsize. Form-based codes create an attractive pedestrian friendly environment that works cooperatively with building and green regulations and creates a better quality of life for residents and visitors. She pointed out the four years of input and study provide a true representation of the community’s interest in the change. Walkable communities bring economic benefits, higher real estate values and increased occupancy rates. She encouraged the Council to support the proposed amendments. Doug Purcell, Edmonds, submitted aerial views of Westgate in 1947, 1955 and 1965. Edmonds is frequently discussed as a state of mind, a walkable community where residents have access to entertainment, restaurants, and other activities. A member of the EDC, he encouraged the Council to review the white paper the EDC submitted. Form-based codes and this plan provide an opportunity to identify spaces and Westgate is such a space. He recalled a resident speaking at an EDC meeting said some areas of Edmonds have looked the same for over 100 years. He referred to the aerial views of Westgate that illustrate development in that area was very different in 1965. This plan and the form-based code provide an opportunity to experience the state of mind of Edmonds in Westgate. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, recalled when he turned 16, most young people had a car. Now a 25-year old, many young professionals make their living decisions based on access to public transportation and walkability, whether they can get from home to school, work, social events without driving and can they get by without a car at all, are there grocery stores or dining options nearby and whether they will feel connected to the community. Edmonds has the have opportunity to redevelop Westgate and entice young people to settle in the community and stay for the long term. Residents often say they have lived in Edmonds for 20-50 years; this is an opportunity for the next generation to plant their roots and become long term residents. A redeveloped Westgate under this proposal offers a future that includes amenities the Westgate community is missing by encouraging dining, entertaining and sustainable businesses that will extend Edmonds’ vibrant community and culture beyond the bowl. This is a very important plan for the future and he urged the Council to support it. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, Chair, EDC, and a member since inception, explained the EDC initially proposed the neighborhood business residential plan for Westgate in 2010 and has been involved in each step of the plan. During that time approximately 35 commissioners have had input into the process and more than 50 public meetings have been held during which Westgate was discussed and the public had an opportunity to comment. All the documentation regarding the Westgate process is posted on the City’s website as events have occurred. The plan was significantly revised by the UW Green Futures and Cascade Land Conservancy after the EDC reviewed and offered input on the initial and revised working drafts. Additional significant revisions were made by the Planning Board prior to and subsequent to its three public hearings in response to public comment. The EDC approved the Re-visioning Westgate white paper by a vote of 11-0-1 (1 Commissioner abstaining) endorsing the Planning Board’s recommendation for the redevelopment of Westgate. He relayed former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton’s support for the reasons in the EDC’s white paper. Edmonds citizens living outside the bowl deserve amenities similar to those in the bowl including a lifestyle center and walkable community with easy access to restaurants, services, housing, transportation and open spaces. Westgate is Packet Page 327 of 787 a major gateway to the community. The proposal is sound, taking into consideration protection of the environment, creation of open space, green building standards, increased revenue and enhancement of an important neighborhoods. He encouraged the Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendation as presented. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented when he moved to this area in 1979 the PCC property did not exist; Albertsons was built in 1980/1981, the QFC was a small Olson’s grocery store and Goodwill was a Coast to Coast with a pharmacy. He summarized there have been massive changes in area. He looked forward to a lot of the changes envisioned in the Planning Board recommendation, particularly an enlarged QFC. QFC has wanted a bigger store for some time but was unsuccessful in acquiring the old Albertson’s or bowling alley properties due to multiple property owners. This plan would allow a larger QFC with underground parking and residential above to assist with the cost of constructing underground parking. He urged the Council to adopt the Westgate Plan. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed public hearing. Councilmember Petso complimented the members of the City’s boards and commission who spoke tonight including six members of the EDC as well as a Planning Board Member. She asked the press to assist the Council in getting the word out to the rest of the public that the Council is considering this Plan and accepting comments. In addition to the members of boards and commissions, the only other people who provided testimony were a relative of an EDC member and a citizen who attends all Council meetings. Councilmember Petso referred to drawing of a commercial block mixed use building and a drawing identifying where that building type would be allowed in Westgate. If it was not the desire of those promoting the Westgate Plan to allow that building type on most of the properties in Westgate, she suggested deleting building type 7. If the intent was to allow that type of building on most properties in Westgate, consideration should to be given to setbacks, landscaping, parking, and design requirements. Councilmember Petso asked if Mr. Chave could provide additional research regarding parking minimums and what parking requirements are needed for viable commercial space. She assumed a drugstore owner knows how much parking they need. Mr. Chave responded parking requirements vary by use, use type and the company. For example, the parking was very rarely used when the PCC building was occupied by Albertsons; PCC is a different occupant/type of development and has a much larger parking use ratio. He offered to provide estimates of square footage and numbers of parking spaces from an inventory done by the UW at the outset of the process. He also offered to provide information from other jurisdictions for more concentrated development. Councilmember Petso requested the standards and criteria that proposals need to meet for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. She recalled from the review of the Port’s plan, one of them was maintain the appropriate balance of land uses in the city. Councilmember Petso asked whether this proposal had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Chave answered the City Attorney has seen it at different times but not as a final ordinance. Councilmember Petso explained the reason she asked was her concern that words were used in different contexts. For example, one of the building types is a courtyard residential, in another area of the code a courtyard can be access to a building and in another area a courtyard is open space. She asked whether there were plans to tighten the definitions. Mr. Chave suggested she email him specific references. Councilmember Petso referred to the EDC’s white paper that stated the hope that the plan will create more public space, yet although the ordinance has required amenity space, there is no requirement that it Packet Page 328 of 787 be public; it can be on a privately accessible rooftop or courtyard. She asked how public space could be created that would make Westgate a destination versus just a quick stop to shop. Mr. Chave suggested that be a topic for discussion. Councilmember Petso relayed her interest in quality business space. She recalled buildings that were constructed downtown that did not reflect the intent and the Council subsequently adopting requirements for minimum first floor ceiling height, surface level first floor, first floor commercial depth, etc. She suggested adding those to the Westgate proposal. Mr. Chave suggested that be a topic for discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about setbacks to adjoining properties and asked if there was a setback between the QFC property and the cemetery. Mr. Chave answered the cemetery is zoned public; he was not certain whether there was a required setback between commercial and public. He offered to research, commenting if there was not, it would be easy to remedy. He explained all the other properties adjacent to Westgate are zoned residential and have a least a 15 foot setback. In many cases there would be a larger setback due to the slopes. He referred to the Westgate Protected Slopes map, identifying slope and setbacks. To clarify Councilmember Petso’s concerns regarding the commercial block mixed use building, Council President Buckshnis pointed out many other building types are allowed in that area such as side court mixed use, loft mixed use, live/work mixed use, stacked dwellings, courtyard and rowhouses. Although Councilmember Petso showed only one of the seven types, Council President Buckshnis did not envision the entire area would be developed with commercial mixed use building. Mr. Chave answered the commercial mixed use is typically the larger properties that front on 100th and SR-104. There are several properties on the periphery where commercial block building could not be constructed. He noted there are only two types of commercial buildings – commercial block and side court. Historically commercial buildings are blocks because that is the most efficient way to construct commercial space and it provides a nice, uniform pedestrian-oriented front entry and sidewalks. He noted the name of the building type could be changed if commercial block did not have a positive image. Council President Buckshnis suggested during the presentation staff provide illustrations of all seven building types. Council President Buckshnis advised August 26 is a study session and no action will be taken. Councilmember Bloom asked about the step-back area at the intersection. Mr. Chave displayed the map that identified height limits in various areas, advising the step-back from the intersection was 30 feet. The required setback is 12 feet, therefore, an additional 18 feet would be required to go above two stories. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPENSATION COMMISSION ORDINANCE OPTIONS Council President Buckshnis explained she asked City Attorney Taraday to identify policy issues based on what has happened in past and what could happen in the future. His memo, contained in the Council packet, suggests five options: 1. Confirm Mayor Earling’s appointments/reappointments and allow the Commission to proceed to establish the 2015-2016 compensation for the City Council, Mayor and Judge. 2. Confirm Mayor Earling’s appointments/reappointments but limit the Commission’s role to establishing the 2015-2016 compensation for the City Council. 3. Confirm two or fewer of the Mayor’s appointments. 4. Repeal Ordinance 3974, but leave the Chapter 10.80 ECC on the books. 5. Repeal Chapter 10.80 ECC Packet Page 329 of 787 We s t g a t e S t u d y A r e a Da s h e d b o u n d a r y s h o w s e x t e n t o f p r o p o s e d p l a n / z o n i n g c h a n g e . Packet Page 330 of 787 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 2 3 2 N D S T S W 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 2 2 8 T H P L S W 2 2 7 T H P L S W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 9 8 T H 9 E D M O N D S W A Y 1 0 0 T H A V E W 2 3 2 N D S T S W 9 9 T H A V E W W 9 6 T H P L W BN BN RS - 8 RS-8 BC BC-EW We s t g a t e Z o n i n g Ex i s t i n g z o n i n g p a t t e r n o f t h e W e s t g a t e a r e a . D a s h e d bo u n d a r y s h o w s t h e l i m i t o f t h e W e s t g a t e s t u d y a r e a . Packet Page 331 of 787 50’ 58’ 55’ 60’ 70’ 65’ 70’ 70’ 70’ 65’ 30’ 30’ 25’ 30’ 40’ 40’50’50’50’52’ 52’ 52’50’ Packet Page 332 of 787 We s t g a t e T o p o g r a p h y Da r k b r o w n l i n e s s h o w 1 0 - f o o t in t e r v a l s i n e l e v a t i o n c h a n g e . Packet Page 333 of 787 232ND ST SW 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 228TH PL SW 227TH PL SW 1 5 T H W A Y S W 231ST PL SW 9 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H A V E W227THPLSW E D M O N D S W AY 1 0 0 T H A V E W 232ND ST SW 9 9 T H A V E W 9 8 T H P L W 9 5 3 0 97 2 6 DU S T Y ' S 97 2 2 97 2 0 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 8 98 0 6 98 0 2 97 9 8 97 9 4 97 9 2 97 9 0 23028BARTELL'S -10030 23028 SALEMLUTHERNCHURCH 23115 1001610022 9601 96 2 4 228042 2 8 0 6 10116 23102 97219723 95 1 7 95 1 1 9508 9 5 1 4 9520 96 1 1 96 1 5 9609 23115 2310723103 23125 22915 2291122907 22831 10 1 3 0 2281722818 22828 22826 22808 22806 22925 22933 22919 22717 9709 952 1 95 1 5 9520 9 5 2 4 23001 95 2 1 95 3 1 22629 22711 22721 22719 95 1 3 23 1 2 6 23 1 2 4 23120 95 1 3 95 1 4 74 4 9705 9702 9706971 0 97 1 6 9724 22727 22712 9529 9504 9 5 1 0 9 5 1 6 23 0 1 5 9601 23215 9516 95 1 2 95 1 0 95 3 2 95 2 1 95 0 9 9507 95 1 5 95 2 3 95 2 9 96 0 4 23029 23 1 0 6 98 2 2 2301 723027 10119 1010 9 10 1 0 1 23124 23122 23114 9906 23216 23206 23221 23215 9624 23214 23221 23206 23215 232059924 9828 23218 23214 23206 23029 9920 961023109 96 0 7 96 2 3 23 1 2 3 9729 23126 2303023028 9706971897 2 8 97 2 7 9717 9707 23127 23119 23111 23105 2303123030 23104 23110 23118 982599 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 7 23107 23105 23116 23108 23110 23112 23104 23102 23105 23117 23119 23121 9713 22710 22718 23019 100 3 2 98 2 1 98 2 9 9803 2270222704 98 2 1 2280 3 228 0 8 228 1 0 22809 228 0 7 22 8 0 5 9 7 0 1 22 7 2 6 22 7 2 0 9715 9706 97039711 23015 23027 98 2 8 2273122714 97 2 7 22710820 99 2 6 99 1 8 99 1 0 99 0 4 9826 98 2 0 99 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 5 10 1 1 9 23009 1 0 2 0 0 22828 9930 9910 97 2 4 98 0 4 23025 9727 22815 22811 22805 23024 98 0 5 98 1 3 9820 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 1 7 2280410117 750 22910 22920 22 9 1 2 22 8 3 0 23002 23006 22930 23 0 1 0 23 0 0 4 23026 23024 771 9827 9620 23003 23009 2301723024 23014 23027 740 761 230 1 1 23001 10 1 2 4 10 1 1 5 76 GAS IVAR'S PA R K I N G PARKING ROSEWOOD CT TE N N I S CO U R T S BANK QFC SUNRISE OLD WOODWAYH.S. TACOBELL GOODWILL PARKING PARKING WALGREEN'S PCC NATURALMARKET PARKING BANK M C D O N A L D ' S 9801 9797 BANK 330 350 3 3 2 32 2 332 340 June 2014 ¯ 1 inch = 250 feet City of Edmonds121 5th Ave NEdmonds, WA 98020 500 Feet Protected Slope Line Visibility Line25'35'45' Westgate Protected Slopes Buildings at indicated height arevisible up to corresponding coloredline. Packet Page 334 of 787 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: SR 104 Corridor Study / Westgate Redevelopment Subject: Summary of Transportation Analysis Date: June 14, 2013 Author: Jennifer Barnes, P.E. In September 2012, transportation assessment was completed that included detailed analysis at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W. The analysis evaluated the potential impacts to the intersection of the proposed land use changes from Neighborhood Business to mixed-used development with higher density. The analysis studied weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions (most congested time of day at this location), and included projected traffic volumes and intersection operational analysis for the long-range planning year of 2025. To determine transportation impacts with the proposed land use density changes, the analysis compared expected future traffic volumes and intersection delay, with and without the proposed land use change. In the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the projected 2025 traffic volumes at this intersection reflect future land use growth with the current adopted land use plan. The September 2012 analysis projected the 2025 traffic volumes with the proposed land use change. The analysis projected that an additional 461 PM peak hour trips would be generated by build-out of planned land use with the proposed change. With land use build-out under existing zoning, the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) D in 2025, with an average intersection delay of 44.6 seconds. With additional trips generated by the land use change, the intersection delay is projected to increase by about 10 seconds, but would still maintain LOS D operation. The City’s adopted level of service standard and concurrency requirement for arterials is LOS D. Local concurrency requirements do not apply to intersections along SR 104 because it is a Highway of Statewide Significance; however, the City identifies intersection deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. The analysis showed that concurrency requirements would be met through the long-range planning year of 2025 with the proposed re-development. No additional vehicular lanes would be needed along SR 104 or 100th Avenue S. Depending on the future development proposed, additional project-level traffic analysis could be needed to determine if a road diet would be feasible along 100th Avenue S in the Westgate vicinity. Packet Page 335 of 787 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Subject: Transportation Assessment Date: September 28, 2012 Author: Jennifer Barnes, P.E. 1. Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing to revise its Comprehensive Plan land use element to allow mixed-use development with higher densities in the Westgate and Five Corners areas. The City previously completed citywide transportation analysis to support planned future land use through the Comprehensive Plan’s long-range planning year of 2025, which is documented in the current Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan).1 This memorandum presents the analysis of the potential transportation impact of the proposed land use policy changes. The City’s proposal is a non-project action; therefore, the transportation analysis presented in this memorandum reflects a programmatic assessment of its potential effect on the City’s long range transportation plan. Analysis is provided for the weekday PM peak hour condition, which reflects the most congested hour of a typical week, and is the analysis period on which the City’s concurrency program is based. 2. Relevent Legislation 2.1. Growth Management Act Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is governed by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Requirements for the transportation element of a Comprehensive Plan are codified in Chapter 36.70A.070(6) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). In addition to requiring con- sistency with the land use element, the GMA requires that the following components be included in transportation elements: Inventory of facilities by mode of transport; Level of service assessment to aid in determining the existing and future operating conditions of the facilities; Proposed actions to bring these deficient facilities into compliance; Traffic forecasts, based upon planned future land use; 1 City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2011. Packet Page 336 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 2 - September 28, 2012 Identification of infrastructure needs to meet current and future demands; Funding analysis for needed improvements, as well as possible additional funding sources; Identification of intergovernmental coordination efforts; and Identification of demand management strategies as available. In addition to these elements, GMA mandates that new development cannot occur unless adequate supporting infrastructure either already exists or is built concurrent with development (the concurrency timeframe is defined as the six-year period from the time the need for improvement is triggered). In addition to capital facilities, infrastructure may include transit service, Transportation Demand Man- agement (TDM) strategies, or Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies. Under the GMA, local governments and agencies must annually prepare and adopt six-year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). These programs must be consistent with the transportation element of the local com- prehensive plan, and other state and regional plans and policies. The City’s current Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, and presents transportation analysis and transportation improvement projects to support its future land use plan, consistent with GMA requirements. 2.2. State Environmental Policy Act The proposed changes to the City zoning code are a non-project action subject to the State Environ- mental Policy Act (SEPA), which is codified under the RCW 43.21C, and Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The analysis presented in this memorandum provides trans- portation impact analysis of the proposed changes to the City’s land use plan needed to support SEPA for a non-project action. 3. Land Use Assessment The City is proposing revisions to its land use code that would allow higher density mixed use development in (1) the Five Corners neighborhood, surrounding the five-legged intersection of Main Street, Bowdoin Way, 212th Street SW, and 84th Avenue W, and (2) the Westgate neighborhood, surrounding the intersection of Edmonds Way (State Route [SR] 104) and 100th Avenue W. For each of the two study areas, Table 1 summarizes the existing land use, projected 2025 land use that was analyzed in the Transportation Plan, and the 2025 land use that has been projected with the proposed land use policy changes. The projections assume build-out of the proposed land use concepts by 2025; this is a conservative representation of future conditions because it reflects the highest number of additional trips that could result from future redevelopment. It is likely that if the land use policy changes are adopted, complete redevelopment would not occur by 2025. The table shows that in the Five Corners area, the proposed land use policy changes could result in a higher level of retail, but lower levels of residential and office development than what was analyzed in the Transportation Plan. In the Westgate area, residential, retail and office development are all projected to be higher with the proposed policy changes than the land use analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Packet Page 337 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 3 - September 28, 2012 Table 1. Land Use Summary Land Use Type Single Family Residential (dwelling units) Multi-family Residential (dwelling units) Retail (square feet) Office (square feet) Church (square feet) Five Corners Existing 1 4 4 30,760 17,378 12,192 2025 Projected in Transportation Plan 2 4 114 40,560 51,428 12,192 2025 Projected with Land Use Change 3 --- 95 98,795 33,331 --- Westgate Existing 1 7 2 193,993 44,446 --- 2025 Projected in Transportation Plan 2 7 13 201,175 52,302 --- 2025 Projected with Land Use Change 4 --- 204 336,800 167,600 --- 1. Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012. 2. Source: City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009. 3. Source: City of Edmonds, Five Corners Concept Plan, 2012. 4. Source: City of Edmonds, Westgate Concept Plan, 2012. 4. Trip Generation Assessment To evaluate the potential localized effects of the land use policy change on future roadway operations, the resulting change in vehicle trips generated within the subarea was estimated for the weekday PM peak hour, which is the most congested hour during a typical week, and the analysis period on which the City’s concurrency program is based. This section presents the estimate of additional trips projected to result from the proposed land use changes compared to the projected land use that was analyzed in the Transportation Plan. These estimates provide the basis for determining the potential transportation impacts of the proposed policy change. The methodologies used to determine the trips account for the location of the study area neighborhoods, their proximity to transit, and the walkability promoted in the pedestrian-focused elements of the redevelopment concepts. As a result, the traffic estimates reflect the expectation that some of the trips would occur by modes other than single-occupant vehicles. The methodology also accounts for the mixed-use character of the concepts that would keep some trips internal to the site. For over a decade, Heffron Transportation has utilized a trip generation methodology for urban mixed-use development projects that adjusts typical suburban Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates to account for urban characteristics and variety of modal choices for subject properties. This methodology accounts for each site’s local characteristics related to transit use, carpooling, walking, and bicycling. For mixed-use projects, it also accounts for trips that occur between uses on a site. The analysis methodology relies on future forecasts from the City’s travel demand forecasting model as well as data provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and produces estimates of peak hour vehicle trips, transit trips, and non-motorized trips that are necessary for transportation impact analyses. Packet Page 338 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 4 - September 28, 2012 4.1. Summary of Heffron Transportation Trip Generation Methodology Trip generation for new projects is typically determined using rates and equations in Trip Genera- tion.2 This reference manual summarizes the results of numerous traffic studies throughout the coun- try for a variety of land-use types. The Trip Generation User’s Guide states on page 1: “The average trip generation rates in this report represent weighted averages of studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada since the 1960s. Data were primarily col- lected at suburban locations having little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. At specific sites, the user may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this document to reflect the presence of public transportation services, ridesharing, or other TDM measures, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities, or other special characteristics of the site or surrounding area.” Thus, as recommended in Trip Generation, the ITE trip generation rates were adjusted to account for the sites’ proximity to transit and proposed mix of land uses. The following methodology was used to adjust the trip generation rates to account for internal trips among uses at the site, transit and non- motorized modes of travel, and also to account for vehicle trips generated by the site that would already be traveling on the roadway network. 1. The total number of “person trips” generated by each major land use category (residential, office, and retail) was determined using trip generation rates and equations from ITE’s Trip Generation, plus information about the average number of persons per vehicle assumed in the ITE rates. These person trips reflect all trips generated by a land use component by all modes of travel including transit, bike, and foot. It also reflects the trips made between on-site uses. 2. Internal trips between on-site uses were estimated using the methodology pre- sented in Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook.3 An office worker who makes a lunchtime trip to an on-site restaurant, or a resident who makes a trip to an on-site retail shop, are examples of internal trips. The internal trips are assumed to occur on foot within each of the Five Corners and Westgate areas. 3. The mode of travel used for off-site trips was determined based on PSRC’s compilation of 2000 Census data summarizing mode shares for residents and employees within the areas where the project sites are located. The retail rates were estimated based on the assumption that a small portion of the retail trips would also occur by transit or non-motorized modes. 4. Person trips by automobile were converted back to vehicle trips based on local data about the average number of persons per vehicle in the study areas. 5. Total vehicle trips were separated into “pass-by” trips (trips already on the roadway network) and “primary” trips (new trips generated by the site), utilizing procedures in the Trip Generation Handbook.4 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, June 2004. 4 Ibid. Packet Page 339 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 5 - September 28, 2012 Details for each of these steps are provided in the following sections, and detailed trip calculations are provided in Attachment A. The same methodologies were applied to the Transportation Plan projected land use (referred to as the Baseline scenario) and to the projected land use with the proposed policy changes (referred to as the Rezone scenario). The difference in net new trips in the Rezone scenario, compared to the Baseline scenario, reflect the additional trips projected to result from the proposed policy changes. 4.2. Trip Rates ITE trip generation rates and equations were used as the basis for determining the number of person trips. Person trips are the total number of trips made by all modes of travel, including passengers in cars, buses, on bikes or on foot. The person trips were determined by applying an average-vehicle- occupancy (AVO) factor to the ITE vehicle trips for each land use. The ITE vehicle trip rates and the assumed AVO factors for each land use are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. ITE Trip Generation Rates ITE Code Land Use PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Rate 1 % Inbound 1 % Outbound 1 AVO 210 Single Family Residential 1.01 trips/dwelling unit 63% 37% 1.20 2 220 Multifamily Residential 0.62 trips/dwelling unit 65% 35% 1.20 3 560 Church 0.55 trips/1,000 sf 48% 52% 1.20 2 710 General Office 1.49 trips/1,000 sf 17% 83% 1.10 4 820 Retail 3.73 trips/1,000 sf 49% 51% 1.20 5 1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8th Edition, 2008. 2. Heffron estimate, based on past experience with similar developments. 3. Final Report on Improved Vehicle Occupancy Data Collection Methods, Battelle, April 1997. 4. Based on AVO rate published for Single-Tenant Office Building (LU 715) ITE's Trip Generation (ITE, 8th Edition, 2008). 5. Based on AVOs for other retail in ITE's Trip Generation (ITE, 8th Edition, 2008). 4.3. Internal Trips The total number of trips generated by a site includes “internal trips,” or trips made between one use on the site and another use on the site. Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook 5 is dedicated to estimating trip generation for multi-use developments, and provides a methodology to estimate the number of internal trips that can be expected at specific types of sites. This method is based on the type and size of various land uses. The more balanced the mix of uses, the higher the percentage of internal trips. Developments with a predominance of one type of use (e.g., mostly office, or mostly residential) typically have few or no internal trips. Each of the subareas evaluated are small enough that all internal trips were assumed to occur on foot. ITE’s methodology to determine internal trips has four steps: 1. Determine the number of trips generated by each land use as if each was on a separate site. 5 Ibid. Packet Page 340 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 6 - September 28, 2012 2. Determine the number of internal trips from capture rates provided in the Trip Generation Handbook. 3. Balance the number of internal trips to and from all land uses at the site. 4. Subtract internal person trips based on the percentages determined. The Trip Generation Handbook provides internal trip capture percentages for retail, office, and resi- dential uses for PM peak hour conditions, which were applied for the trip calculations within each of the two study areas. 4.4. Mode of Travel The mode of travel percentages were derived from Journey-to-Work survey results from the year 2000 Census compiled by the PSRC for residents and employees in the zones in which the two study areas are located. Table 3 summarizes the mode shares for the two study areas, which were applied to the estimated person trips. The “Residents” mode shares were applied to projected residential trips and the “Employee” mode shares were applied to projected office trips. Retail trips were assumed to have the same mode shares as residential trips. It should be noted that the redevelopment concepts for both study areas are designed to encourage higher use of alternative modes. Therefore, it is likely that transit and non-motorized use at the sites would be higher than the historical averages for the areas in which they are located, and that the estimated vehicle mode share based on these averages is conservative. Table 3. Mode-of-Travel Assumptions Five Corners 1 Westgate 2 Mode of Travel Residents Employees Residents Employees Drive Alone 79.4% 80.2% 74.0% 75.8% Carpool 9.5% 9.4% 10.0% 11.0% Transit 5.5% 0.6% 7.5% 1.7% Non-Motorized 1.3% 2.2% 2.6% 3.0% Other (e.g., work from home) 4.3% 7.6% 5.9% 8.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Average Vehicle Occupancy 3 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.07 1. Source: PSRC, Journey-to-Work data from 2000 U.S. Census, Data for Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 576 and 577. 2. Source: PSRC, Journey-to-Work data from 2000 U.S. Census, Data for TAZs 578, 580, and 581. 3. Derived from Journey-to-Work dataset, which included sizes of carpools. The “person trips by automobile” for residential and office uses were converted back to vehicle trips by applying the AVO for residents and employees in the study areas, based also on PSRC Journey-to- Work data and shown in Table 3. Person trips generated by the retail and church uses were converted to vehicle trips by applying the AVOs presented in Table 2. 4.5. Trip Components There are two types of trips—primary and pass-by trips—which reflect the traffic impact characteris- tics associated with the retail element of the proposed mixed-use land uses. Packet Page 341 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 7 - September 28, 2012 Pass-by Trips are already on the roadway network on the way to another destination. For example, a trip to a retail store at Westgate during a trip home from work that uses SR 104 would be a pass-by trip. Primary (New) Trips are single-purpose trips generated by the retail or other land use types. New trips are generally assumed to begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work or other locations. Pass-by trips would affect driveway volumes at the specific site access points, but do not represent new trips on the citywide roadway network. Because the proposed land use policy change is a non- project action, the programmatic transportation analysis only considers the potential effect of additional primary (new) trips on the transportation system. Driveway traffic volumes would be evaluated at the project level, as a condition of approval for specific development proposals. The average pass-by trip percentage of 34% published in the Trip Generation Handbook6 for Shopping Centers (Land Use 820) was applied to the projected retail development within the Five Corners and Westgate areas. The remaining percentages of retail trips would be considered new to study area roadways and intersections. The residential and office uses were assumed not to generate pass-by trips. 4.6. Vehicle Trip Generation Summary All of the methods described above were applied to project the number of vehicle trips that would result from the proposed policy changes in the Five Corners and Westgate area, compared to the trips projected for these areas in the Transportation Plan analysis. Detailed trip generation tables for the Five Corners and Westgate areas are provided in Attachment A. Table 4 presents the total vehicle trips that are projected to result from the proposed policy changes at the two sites. The table shows that for the Five Corners area, about 66 additional PM peak hour primary trips are projected to be generated in 2025 with the proposed land use policy changes, compared to the projections analyzed in the Transportation Plan. In the Westgate area, about 461 additional PM peak hour primary trips are projected. 4.7. Trip Distribution and Roadway Network Assignment The inbound and outbound trip distribution patterns for this project were derived from trip origin and destination data obtained from the City of Edmonds travel demand forecasting model. In the Five Corners area, trip distribution data were compiled for Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 24, 27, 30, 31 and 32. In the Westgate area, data were compiled for TAZs 15, 35, 48 and 49. These TAZs all include some portion of the two study areas. Net new vehicle trips projected to result from the land use policy change were assigned to the roadway network according to the derived trip distribution patterns. To estimate future traffic volumes with the proposed land use policy changes, the forecasted net changes traffic generated by the two study sites were added to the 2025 traffic volumes projected in the Transportation Plan. 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004, Figure 5.5. Packet Page 342 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 8 - September 28, 2012 Table 4. Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Five Corners Westgate Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 96 103 199 319 337 656 Office - Primary Trips 6 37 43 28 189 217 Residential - Primary Trips 26 11 37 52 19 71 Total Primary Trips 128 151 279 399 545 944 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 52 52 104 169 169 338 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 180 203 383 568 714 1282 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 39 38 77 197 211 408 Office - Primary Trips 13 66 79 9 56 65 Residential - Primary Trips 39 18 57 9 1 10 Total Primary Trips 91 122 213 215 268 483 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 20 20 40 105 105 210 Total 111 142 253 320 373 693 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 57 65 122 122 126 248 Office - Primary Trips -7 -29 -36 19 133 152 Residential - Primary Trips -13 -7 -20 43 18 61 Net New Primary Trips 37 29 66 184 277 461 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 32 32 64 64 64 128 Total Vehicle Trips 69 61 130 248 341 589 Source: Heffron Transportation, September 2012. 5. Traffic Operations Assessment Traffic operations are evaluated by intersection level of service, which is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. Six letter designations, “A” through “F,” are used to define level of service. LOS A and B represent the lowest level of traffic congestion, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic flow with some delay. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching congested conditions and LOS F indicates that traffic conditions are at a high level of congestion with unstable traffic flow. Attachment B presents the level of service criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Packet Page 343 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 9 - September 28, 2012 Levels of service for signalized and stop-controlled intersections were calculated using methodologies based on those presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).7 All level of service calculations for conventional intersections were performed using Trafficware’s Synchro 7.0 analysis software, consistent with the analysis presented in the Transportation Plan. Results for were reported using the HCM Signalized and Unsignalized modules. Operation of the planned future roundabout at the Five Corners intersection was evaluated using SIDRA analysis software. Attachment B includes the level of service reports completed for this study. Under GMA, concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support the City’s adopted future land use plan. Level of service standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of long-term growth and concurrency. In order to monitor concurrency, the jurisdictions adopt acceptable roadway operating conditions that are then used to measure existing and projected future traffic conditions and identify deficiencies. Table 5 summarizes the City’s adopted level of service standards. Table 5. City of Edmonds Level of Service Standards Facility Standard City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes); Collectors: LOS C or better. State Routes1 SR 99 north of SR 104; SR 524: LOS E or better. 1. State routes for which a standard is designated are Highways of Regional Significance, and are subject to City concurrency requirements. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if the WSDOT standard of LOS D is exceeded. Table 6 summarizes the 2025 level of service projected to result with build-out of the City’s adopted land use plan and the proposed land use policy changes. The analysis assumed completion of the City’s planned transportation improvement projects that have been identified through 2025, which are summarized in Attachment C. The levels of service with projected volumes in the Transportation Plan are provided for comparison. As shown, the highest increase in average delayabout 10 secondsis expected to occur at the intersection of Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W. This is not surprising since the intersection is located in the center of the Westgate area. However, the intersection is projected to still operate at a high LOS D with the land use changes. An increase in average delay of about 6 seconds is projected at 238th Street/SR 99, but the intersection is expected to still operate at LOS C with the land use changes. At all other City analysis intersections the proposed land use policy changes are projected to add about 0 to 3 seconds of average delay. All City analysis intersections are projected to operate within their adopted level of service standards with the proposed land use policy changes. It is noted that the results in Table 6 assume that Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W would maintain its existing geometry. However, the Westgate redevelopment concept includes a proposed “road diet” on 100th Avenue W that would remove one general purpose lane in each direction and convert that space to bicycle and parking lanes. The operational implication of reducing vehicle capacity on 100th Avenue W is discussed in the following section. 7 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Packet Page 344 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 10 - September 28, 2012 Table 6. 2025 Level of Service with Planned Transportation Plan Improvements LOS Standard Projected Volumes in Transportation Plan Projected Volumes with Policy Change Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay Stop Controlled 1 174th Street SW/Olympic View Drive D C 22.1 C 22.1 Signalized 2 Olympic View Drive/76th Avenue W D B 12.3 B 12.4 3 196th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 47.2 D 48.1 4 Puget Drive (SR 524)/88th Avenue W E A 8.1 A 8.1 5 Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive D B 19.7 B 20.0 6 Caspers Street/9th Avenue N (SR 524) E B 12.7 B 13.4 7 208th Street SW/76th Avenue W D B 18.0 B 18.1 8 212th Street SW/SR 99 E E 79.6 E 80.0 9 212th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 53.5 D 54.6 11 Main Street/9th Avenue N D B 15.7 B 17.0 12 Walnut Street/9th Avenue S D A 9.4 B 10.2 13 Main Street/3rd Avenue N (SR 524) E A 9.4 A 9.5 14 220th Street SW/SR 99 E E 62.3 E 63.7 15 220th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 52.2 D 53.2 16 220th Street SW/84th Avenue W D B 11.2 B 11.7 17 220th Street SW/9th Avenue S D B 14.0 B 14.6 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104)/100th Ave W (1) D 44.6 D 54.3 19 238th Street SW/SR 99 E C 32.9 C 38.6 20 238th St SW/Edmonds Way (SR 104) (1) B 11.1 B 14.4 21 244th Street SW (SR 104)/76th Ave W (1) D 52.5 D 54.5 22 244th Street SW (SR 104)/SR 99 2 (1) D 45.9 D 46.4 23 238th Street SW/100th Avenue W D B 18.5 B 19.0 24 238th Street SW/Firdale Avenue D C 26.8 C 26.9 Roundabout 10 212th Street SW/84th Avenue W D A 10.0 B 11.0 LOS = Level of service; Delay = average seconds of delay per vehicle. 1. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. 2. Shared jurisdiction with WSDOT and the City of Shoreline; improvement of this intersection is included in the final phase of the City of Shoreline’s Aurora Corridor Improvement Project, N 165th Street to N 205th Street, which is planned to begin construction in 2013. Packet Page 345 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 11 - September 28, 2012 6. Effect of Vehicle Capacity Reduction on 100th Avenue W As mentioned in the previous section, the City’s design concept for redevelopment of the Westgate area includes a potential road diet on 100th Avenue W at Edmonds Way, which would reduce the existing five-lane section (two general purpose traffic lanes in each direction with a center left-turn lane) to a three-lane section. A general purpose traffic lane would be removed in each direction, and converted to a bicycle and parking lanes. Analysis indicates that with the 2025 projected traffic volumes at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, this reduction in vehicle capacity would degrade the intersection operation from LOS D to LOS F. However, there are strategies that could be explored at the site-specific level to balance reduced intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection. For example, the Westgate design concept includes addition of an internal access roadway between 100th Avenue W and Edmonds Way (northeast of the intersection, roughly parallel to Edmonds Way) that would allow vehicles to travel within the site, without having to turn onto Edmonds Way or travel through the Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W intersection. Depending on the specific development that is proposed, there could also be some opportunity to implement transportation demand management strategies that would reduce vehicular trips within the area. It is also possible that the 100th Avenue W intersection could remain wider at the intersection, with lanes that drop to a narrower section away from the intersection. This is similar to the current configuration of 100th Avenue W north of Edmonds Way, where the outside vehicle lanes transition to parking lanes a couple of blocks north of the intersection; however, the reduced general purpose lanes could possibly begin farther south, and also be provided on the south side of Edmonds Way. In order for the road diet to result in acceptable operations at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, it would likely need to be combined with one or more of these types of strategies to balance intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection, and would require detailed project-level analysis. The City would also need to work with WSDOT to move forward with any project that would potentially affect operation on Edmonds Way (SR104), which is a Highway of Statewide Significance. It is not recommended that the proposed roadway cross section be adopted into City design standards until detailed TDM and/or TSM strategies are developed, and detailed project-level analysis of the effect of those strategies is completed. However, it would be consistent with the Transportation Plan for the City to adopt a policy stating its desire to develop strategies that would support implementation of the road diet project along 100th Avenue W. 7. Effect on Transit and Non-Motorized Operations Community Transit provides bus transit service to both study areas. In the Five Corners area, Route 115 provides daily service between Mill Creek, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline, and Mountlake Terrace; Route 116 provides daily service between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mill Creek. In the Westgate area, Route 130 provides daily local bus service between Edmonds, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood; Route 416 provides weekday commuter service between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. These bus routes also provide connections to other bus and rail routes that serve regional destinations. As shown in Attachment A, transit and non-motorized trips are expected to be generated by future new development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas. With the proposed land use policy changes, Packet Page 346 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 12 - September 28, 2012 a total of about 24 transit trips and 120 non-motorized trips (including internal trips, external walking and biking trips, and trips to and from transit stops) are projected to be generated during the PM peak hour by the Five Corners development. In the Westgate area, about 120 trips and 430 non-motorized trips are projected. Both areas are served by existing bus service, and have complete sidewalks on their major streets. Improvements to sidewalks and other non-motorized amenities would also likely be required as a condition of permit approval, as redevelopment occurs. In the Westgate area, it may be desirable to provide bus pull-outs on Edmonds Way as frontage improvement to new development, so that buses may stop outside of the vehicle traffic flow. It is expected that transit and non-motorized demand would be accommodated by existing and future infrastructure and services. The Transportation Plan provides detailed assessment of existing transit and non-motorized conditions, as well as future recommended transit and non-motorized projects. Development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas would not affect the recommended non- motorized improvements and transit recommendations provided in the Transportation Plan, and therefore are consistent with the Transportation Plan analysis. 8. Effect on Site Access, Circulation and Parking The proposed land use policy changes are a non-project action and do not include specific development proposals. Site access, internal circulation, and parking are site-specific characteristics that are more detailed than the transportation policies and analyses presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. If the proposed land use policy changes are approved, new development would be subject to applicable City design standards and parking requirements as condition for approval. Nevertheless, it is recognized that depending on the mix of uses that are developed, there could be opportunities for reduced parking requirements through shared parking. For example, parking could potentially be shared between residents who use their cars during the day but need to park in the evening, and office employees or retail customers who park during the day but not in the evening. As discussed previously, mixed land uses could also encourage more non-motorized trips, particularly between uses within the site. Thus, site access and internal circulation will likely need to consider all modes of travel, maximizing mobility and reducing the potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. 9. Consistency with Transportation Plan Policies The proposed land use policy changes are consistent with Transportation Plan policies. Specifically, the higher density and mixed use development that would be encouraged by the policy changes would promote conservation and sustainability through encouraging alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit. In addition, transportation policies call for design of complete streets that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Policies to encourage higher density mixed use development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas would also support transportation system efficiency by encouraging development where adequate transportation facilities exist, and providing for a greater number of walking and biking trips between uses on-site. Packet Page 347 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 13 - September 28, 2012 10. Conclusions Following is summary of the key findings of the transportation analysis for the proposed land use policy changes. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to generate about 66 additional PM peak hour primary trips in the Five Corners area compared to the 2025 volumes that were analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to generate about 461 additional PM peak hour primary trips in the Westgate area compared to the 2025 volumes that were analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to add about 10 seconds of average vehicle delay at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W in 2025, compared to the Transportation Plan analysis. However, the intersection is projected to still operate at a high LOS D with the existing intersection geometry in place. At all other City analysis intersections, the build-out of land use with the proposed land use policy changes is projected to add zero to 6 seconds of average delay in 2025, compared to the Transportation Plan analysis. All City analysis intersections are projected to operate within their adopted level of service standards with the proposed land use policy change and planned citywide transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Analysis indicates that with the 2025 projected traffic volumes at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, the proposed road diet on 100th Avenue W would degrade the intersection operation from LOS D to LOS F. However, there are strategies that could be explored at the site-specific level to balance reduced intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection, including addition of an internal access roadway between 100th Avenue W and Edmonds Way, transportation demand management strategies, or an intersection configuration in which 100th Avenue W remains wider at the intersection, with lanes that drop to a narrower section away from the intersection. In order for the road diet to result in acceptable operations at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue, it would likely need to be combined with strategies to reduce the vehicle demand through the intersection, and would require detailed project-level traffic analysis. The City would also need to work with WSDOT to move forward with any project that would affect operation on Edmonds Way (SR104), which is a Highway of Statewide Significance. It would be consistent with the Transportation Plan for the City to adopt a policy stating its desire to develop strategies that would support implementation of the road diet project along 100th Avenue W. However, it is not recommended that the proposed roadway cross section be adopted into City design standards until detailed TDM and/or TSM strategies are developed, and detailed project-level analysis of the effect of those strategies is completed. Transit and non-motorized trips are expected to be generated by future new development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas. It is expected that transit and non-motorized demand would be accommodated by existing and future infrastructure and services, and would not affect the recommended non-motorized improvements and transit recommendations provided in the Transportation Plan. Packet Page 348 of 787 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 14 - September 28, 2012 The proposed land use policy changes are a non-project action and do not include specific development proposals. Site access, internal circulation, and parking are site-specific characteristics that are more detailed than the transportation policies and analyses presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. If the proposed land use policy changes are approved, new development would be subject to applicable City design standards and parking requirements as condition for approval. Nevertheless, it is recognized that depending on the mix of uses that are developed, there could be opportunities for reduced parking requirements through shared parking, and that site access and internal circulation will likely need to consider all modes of travel, maximizing mobility and reducing the potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. The proposed land use policy changes are consistent with Transportation Plan policies, specifically those that encourage alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit. They also support transportation system efficiency policies by encouraging development where adequate transportation facilities exist, and providing for a greater number of walking and biking trips between uses on-site. Packet Page 349 of 787 ATTACHMENT A TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Packet Page 350 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area REZONE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Rezone Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 98,795 sf 5,090 217 225 442 General Office (LU 710) 33,331 sf 400 9 46 55 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 95 dwelling units 760 46 25 71 Total All Person Trips 6,250 272 296 568 Internal Trips 694 35 35 70 % Internal Trips 11.1% External Trips 5,556 237 261 498 External Person Trips by Mode - Rezone Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%270 11 12 23 Transit Trips 5.5%260 11 11 22 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%4,217 178 185 363 Total 100.0%4,747 200 208 408 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 2.2%10 0 1 1 Transit Trips 0.6%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 97.2%312 6 40 46 Total 100.0%322 6 41 47 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 5.7%30 2 0 2 Transit Trips 5.5%30 2 0 2 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%427 27 12 39 Total 100.0%487 31 12 43 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 310 13 13 26 Transit Trips 290 13 11 24 Person Trips by Vehicle 4,956 211 237 448 Total 5,556 237 261 498 Vehicle Trips by Component - Rezone Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%2,320 96 103 199 Pass-by Trips 34%1,190 52 52 104 Total 100%3,510 148 155 303 General Office (LU 710) Primary Trips 100%300 6 37 43 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%300 6 37 43 Multifamily Residential (LU 220)1.06 Primary Trips 100%400 26 11 37 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%400 26 11 37 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 3,020 128 151 279 Pass-by Trips 1,190 52 52 104 Total Project Trips 4,210 180 203 383 12.3% Trip Generation Summary Page 1 8/21/2012 Packet Page 351 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area BASELINE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Baseline Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 40,560 sf 2,090 89 93 182 General Office (LU 710) 51,428 sf 620 14 70 84 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 114 dwelling units 910 55 30 85 Single Family Residential (LU 210) 4 dwelling units 50 3 2 5 Church (LU 560) 12,192 sf 130 4 4 8 Total All Person Trips 3,800 165 199 364 Internal Trips 588 26 26 52 % Internal Trips 15.5% External Trips 3,219 139 173 312 External Person Trips by Mode - Baseline Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%100 4 5 9 Transit Trips 5.5%100 4 5 9 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%1,608 71 69 140 Total 100.0%1,808 79 79 158 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 2.2%10 0 2 2 Transit Trips 0.6%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 97.2%531 11 65 76 Total 100.0%541 11 67 78 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 5.7%40 2 2 4 Transit Trips 5.5%40 2 2 4 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%615 39 18 57 Total 100.0%695 43 22 65 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%00 00 Transit Trips 5.5%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%45 2 1 3 Total 100.0%45 2 1 3 Church (LU 560) Walk or Bicycle Trips 0.0%00 00 Transit Trips 0.0%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 100.0%130 4 4 8 Total 100.0%130 4 4 8 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 150 6 9 15 Transit Trips 140 6 7 13 Person Trips by Vehicle 2,929 127 157 284 Total 3,219 139 173 312 Vehicle Trips by Component - Baseline Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%880 39 38 77 Pass-by Trips 34%460 20 20 40 Total 100%1,340 59 58 117 General Office (LU 710)1.06 Primary Trips 100%500 10 62 72 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%500 10 62 72 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Primary Trips 100%580 37 17 54 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%580 37 17 54 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Primary Trips 100%40 2 1 3 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%40 2 1 3 Church (LU 560) Primary Trips 100%110 3 4 7 1.20 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%110 3 4 7 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 2,110 91 122 213 Pass-by Trips 460 20 20 40 Total Project Trips 2,570 111 142 253 14.3% Trip Generation Summary Page 2 8/21/2012 Packet Page 352 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area NET NEW TRIPS Net New Vehicle Trips PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 2,320 96 103 199 Office - Primary Trips 300 6 37 43 Residential - Primary Trips 400 26 11 37 Total Primary Trips 3,020 128 151 279 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 1,190 52 52 104 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 4,210 180 203 383 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 880 39 38 77 Office - Primary Trips 610 13 66 79 Residential - Primary Trips 620 39 18 57 Total Primary Trips 2,110 91 122 213 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 460 20 20 40 Total 2,570 111 142 253 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 1,440 57 65 122 Office - Primary Trips -310 -7 -29 -36 Residential - Primary Trips -220 -13 -7 -20 Net New Primary Trips 910 37 29 66 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 730 32 32 64 Total 1,640 69 61 130 Trip Generation Summary Page 3 8/21/2012 Packet Page 353 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area REZONE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Rezone Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 336,800 sf 17,350 739 769 1,508 General Office (LU 710) 167,600 sf 2,030 47 228 275 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 204 dwelling units 1,630 99 53 152 Total All Person Trips 21,010 885 1,050 1,935 Internal Trips 1,948 91 91 182 % Internal Trips 9.3% External Trips 19,062 794 959 1,753 External Person Trips by Mode - Rezone Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%1,390 59 61 120 Transit Trips 7.5%1,220 52 54 106 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%13,786 585 608 1,193 Total 100.0%16,396 696 723 1,419 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 3.0%50 1 6 7 Transit Trips 1.7%30 1 3 4 Person Trips by Vehicle 95.3%1,555 30 202 232 Total 100.0%1,635 32 211 243 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 8.5%90 6 2 8 Transit Trips 7.5%80 5 2 7 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%861 55 21 76 Total 100.0%1,031 66 25 91 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 1,530 66 69 135 Transit Trips 1,330 58 59 117 Person Trips by Vehicle 16,202 670 831 1,501 Total 19,062 794 959 1,753 Vehicle Trips by Component - Rezone Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%7,580 319 337 656 Pass-by Trips 34%3,910 169 169 338 Total 100%11,490 488 506 994 General Office (LU 710) Primary Trips 100%1,460 28 189 217 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%1,460 28 189 217 Multifamily Residential (LU 220)1.07 Primary Trips 100%810 52 19 71 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%810 52 19 71 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 9,850 399 545 944 Pass-by Trips 3,910 169 169 338 Total Project Trips 13,760 568 714 1,282 9.4% Trip Generation Summary Page 1 8/21/2012 Packet Page 354 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area BASELINE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Baseline Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 201,175 sf 10,370 441 459 900 General Office (LU 710) 52,302 sf 630 15 71 86 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 13 dwelling units 100 7 3 10 Single Family Residential (LU 210) 7 dwelling units 80 5 3 8 Church (LU 560) 0 sf 0 0 0 0 Total All Person Trips 11,180 468 536 1,004 Internal Trips 338 19 19 38 % Internal Trips 3.0% External Trips 10,857 449 517 966 External Person Trips by Mode - Baseline Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%860 36 39 75 Transit Trips 7.5%760 32 34 66 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%8,598 362 379 741 Total 100.0%10,218 430 452 882 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 3.0%20 0 2 2 Transit Trips 1.7%10 0 1 1 Person Trips by Vehicle 95.3%482 10 59 69 Total 100.0%512 10 62 72 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 8.5%10 0 1 1 Transit Trips 7.5%00 11 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%52 5 0 5 Total 100.0%62 5 2 7 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%10 0 0 0 Transit Trips 7.5%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%55 4 1 5 Total 100.0%65 4 1 5 Church (LU 560) Walk or Bicycle Trips 0.0%00 00 Transit Trips 0.0%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 100.0%0 0 0 0 Total 100.0%00 00 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 900 36 42 78 Transit Trips 770 32 36 68 Person Trips by Vehicle 9,187 381 439 820 Total 10,857 449 517 966 Vehicle Trips by Component - Baseline Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%4,730 197 211 408 Pass-by Trips 34%2,440 105 105 210 Total 100%7,170 302 316 618 General Office (LU 710)1.07 Primary Trips 100%450 9 56 65 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%450 9 56 65 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Primary Trips 100%50 5 0 5 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%50 5 0 5 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Primary Trips 100%50 4 1 5 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%50 4 1 5 Church (LU 560) Primary Trips 100%00 001.20 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%00 00 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 5,280 215 268 483 Pass-by Trips 2,440 105 105 210 Total Project Trips 7,720 320 373 693 3.8% Trip Generation Summary Page 2 8/21/2012 Packet Page 355 of 787 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area NET NEW TRIPS Net New Vehicle Trips PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 7,580 319 337 656 Office - Primary Trips 1,460 28 189 217 Residential - Primary Trips 810 52 19 71 Total Primary Trips 9,850 399 545 944 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 3,910 169 169 338 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 13,760 568 714 1282 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 4,730 197 211 408 Office - Primary Trips 450 9 56 65 Residential - Primary Trips 100 9 1 10 Total Primary Trips 5,280 215 268 483 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 2,440 105 105 210 Total 7,720 320 373 693 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 2,850 122 126 248 Office - Primary Trips 1,010 19 133 152 Residential - Primary Trips 710 43 18 61 Net New Primary Trips 4,570 184 277 461 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 1,470 64 64 128 Total 6,040 248 341 589 Trip Generation Summary Page 3 8/21/2012 Packet Page 356 of 787 ATTACHMENT B LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS & REPORTS Packet Page 357 of 787 Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating condi- tions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table B-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual. Table B-1. Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description A Less than 10.0 Seconds Free flow B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable flow (slight delays) C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay— occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding. E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. The delay at an all-way, stop-sign (AWSC) controlled intersection is based on saturation headways, departure headways, and service time using procedures in Chapter 17 – Unsignalized Intersections, Applications – AWSC Intersections of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2010). Table B-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual. Table B-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Less than 10.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Packet Page 358 of 787 SYNCHRO/SIDRA REPORTS TRANSPORTATION PLAN ANALYSIS Packet Page 359 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 1: 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr.HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 30 90 640 880 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 33 98 696 957 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1870 978 1000 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 978 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 891 vCu, unblocked vol 1870 978 1000 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 89 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 252 304 692 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 65 98 696 1000 Volume Left 33 98 0 0 Volume Right 33 0 0 43 cSH 276 692 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.14 0.41 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 12 0 0 Control Delay (s)22.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 Packet Page 360 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 2: Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 340 10 220 340 60 10 210 390 70 50 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1821 1701 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 843 1821 1695 1231 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 370 11 239 370 65 11 228 424 76 54 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)0200110011100160 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 412 0 239 424 0 0 552 0 0 147 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)18.6 18.6 18.6 19.4 19.4 Effective Green, g (s)19.6 19.6 19.6 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)752 359 776 752 546 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.28 c0.33 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.67 0.55 0.73 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 9.9 10.6 9.9 10.6 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 4.6 0.8 3.7 0.3 Delay (s)10.7 15.2 10.7 14.3 8.4 Level of Service B B B B A Approach Delay (s)10.7 12.3 14.3 8.4 Approach LOS BBBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.0 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 361 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 3: 196th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 130 680 50 310 890 210 160 340 210 170 140 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3345 3357 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3345 3357 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 739 54 337 967 228 174 370 228 185 152 87 RTOR Reduction (vph)060023005100260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 787 0 337 1172 0 0 721 0 0 398 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 21.1 17.7 31.2 18.0 14.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.6 22.1 18.7 32.2 19.0 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.21 0.37 0.22 0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 885 378 1265 726 602 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.22 c0.19 c0.34 c0.22 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.99 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 31.5 33.4 26.5 34.2 33.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.0 10.8 22.2 11.6 31.5 2.7 Delay (s)62.7 42.4 55.6 38.1 65.7 36.1 Level of Service E D E D E D Approach Delay (s)45.4 42.0 65.7 36.1 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.5 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 362 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 4: Puget Dr & 88th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 580 10 100 580 120 30 70 100 40 70 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1858 1770 1815 1724 1762 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.94 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 421 1858 572 1815 1627 1631 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 630 11 109 630 130 33 76 109 43 76 54 RTOR Reduction (vph)010013006100280 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 640 0 109 747 0 0 157 0 0 145 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 9.6 9.6 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 1075 331 1050 438 439 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.19 c0.10 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.60 0.33 0.71 0.36 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 5.3 4.3 5.9 11.6 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.4 Delay (s)4.2 6.2 4.9 8.2 12.1 12.0 Level of Service A A A A B B Approach Delay (s)6.1 7.8 12.1 12.0 Approach LOS AABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 363 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 5: Puget Dr & Olympic View Dr.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 490 500 10 30 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1858 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 718 1863 1858 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 533 543 11 33 359 RTOR Reduction (vph)00100271 Lane Group Flow (vph) 446 533 553 0 33 88 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.0 55.0 55.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 479 1242 1239 433 387 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 0.30 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.43 0.45 0.08 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 7.0 7.1 26.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.1 1.1 1.2 0.3 1.4 Delay (s)40.3 8.1 8.3 26.5 28.6 Level of Service D A A C C Approach Delay (s)22.8 8.3 28.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 364 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 6: Caspers St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 420 30 270 550 10 580 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 751 1863 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 457 33 293 598 11 630 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow (vph) 457 17 293 598 11 406 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 970 824 391 970 627 561 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.32 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.39 c0.26 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.75 0.62 0.02 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 7.3 5.6 9.0 8.1 10.1 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 7.7 1.2 0.0 4.6 Delay (s) 7.7 5.6 16.7 9.3 10.1 18.1 Level of Service AABABB Approach Delay (s) 7.5 11.7 17.9 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 365 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 7: 208th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 5 380 0 250 5 660 500 90 320 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1770 1583 1862 1583 3501 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1770 1583 1858 1583 2167 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 413 0 272 5 717 543 98 348 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0500182000186000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 0 413 90 0 0 722 357 0 446 0 Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 3 3 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.3 28.2 28.2 43.8 43.8 43.8 Effective Green, g (s)1.3 29.2 28.2 44.8 44.8 44.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.34 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)27 606 523 976 831 1138 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.23 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.68 0.17 0.74 0.43 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 41.6 24.1 20.3 15.7 12.4 12.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 3.2 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)50.1 27.2 20.4 18.7 12.8 12.3 Level of Service D C C B B B Approach Delay (s)50.1 24.5 16.2 12.3 Approach LOS D C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.3 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 366 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 8: 212th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 230 380 90 160 410 140 150 1780 210 140 1620 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3437 1770 3404 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3437 1770 3404 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 250 413 98 174 446 152 163 1935 228 152 1761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000580055 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 511 0 174 598 0 163 1935 170 152 1761 141 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 29.2 18.7 25.0 12.9 70.5 70.5 11.5 69.1 69.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 30.7 20.2 26.5 13.4 73.0 73.0 12.0 71.6 71.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 713 242 610 160 1747 781 144 1713 766 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.15 0.10 c0.18 c0.09 c0.55 0.09 0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.98 1.02 1.11 0.22 1.06 1.03 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 60.0 54.6 61.1 60.4 67.2 37.5 21.2 68.0 38.2 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.4 2.9 8.2 31.3 76.2 57.4 0.2 90.6 29.2 0.1 Delay (s)80.4 57.4 69.4 91.7 143.4 94.8 21.4 158.5 67.4 21.7 Level of Service F E E F F F C F E C Approach Delay (s)65.0 86.7 91.0 69.7 Approach LOS E F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 147.9 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 367 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 9: 212th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 250 380 110 180 470 120 170 760 140 100 390 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3354 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3354 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 272 413 120 196 511 130 185 826 152 109 424 228 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 90 0 14 0 0 67 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 413 36 196 511 40 185 964 0 109 585 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 30.4 30.4 14.7 29.1 29.1 13.3 29.0 11.6 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 31.4 31.4 15.7 30.1 30.1 14.3 30.0 12.6 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 285 553 470 263 531 451 239 981 211 898 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.22 0.11 c0.27 c0.10 c0.28 0.06 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.75 0.08 0.75 0.96 0.09 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 44.0 33.6 26.7 43.1 37.2 27.7 44.1 37.6 43.7 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 40.7 5.5 0.1 10.9 29.5 0.1 14.4 24.5 2.1 1.7 Delay (s)84.7 39.0 26.8 54.0 66.8 27.8 58.6 62.1 45.8 36.0 Level of Service F D C D E C E E D D Approach Delay (s)52.6 57.7 61.5 37.4 Approach LOS D E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 368 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 10: Main St & 84th Av. W HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL2 WBL WBT WBR NBL2 NBL NBT NBR Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 220 230 110 10 170 230 20 20 150 120 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 239 250 120 11 185 250 22 22 163 130 120 Approach Volume (veh/h) 707 467 435 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 462 467 641 High Capacity (veh/h) 962 958 833 High v/c (veh/h) 0.73 0.49 0.52 Low Capacity (veh/h) 780 776 666 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.91 0.60 0.65 Intersection Summary Maximum v/c High 0.73 Maximum v/c Low 0.91 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.5% ICU Level of Service H Movement SBL SBT SBR SBR2 NEL2 NEL NER NER2 Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 130 5 40 40 10 140 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 141 5 43 43 11 152 22 Approach Volume (veh/h) 288 228 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 674 837 High Capacity (veh/h) 812 711 High v/c (veh/h) 0.35 0.32 Low Capacity (veh/h) 647 559 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.45 0.41 Intersection Summary Packet Page 369 of 787 Unlicensed Trial Version INTERSECTION SUMMARY Site: Rou 5-way Star 1-Lane R Roundabout with 5 legs, and 1-lane approaches and circulating road Roundabout Intersection Performance - Hourly Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)2125 veh/h 2655 pers/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0 % Degree of Saturation 0.754 Practical Spare Capacity 12.7 % Effective Intersection Capacity 2819 veh/h Control Delay (Total)5.90 veh-h/h 7.08 pers-h/h Control Delay (Average)10.0 sec 9.6 sec Control Delay (Worst Lane)11.2 sec Control Delay (Worst Movement)11.2 sec 11.2 sec Geometric Delay (Average)3.6 sec Stop-Line Delay (Average)6.4 sec Intersection Level of Service (LOS)LOS A 95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane)10.2 veh 95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane)72.7 m Total Effective Stops 1977 veh/h 2372 pers/h Effective Stop Rate 0.93 per veh 0.89 per pers Proportion Queued 0.86 0.83 Performance Index 53.9 53.9 Travel Distance (Total)1212.1 veh-km/h 1454.6 pers-km/h Travel Distance (Average)570 m 548 m Travel Time (Total)32.9 veh-h/h 39.4 pers-h/h Travel Time (Average)55.7 sec 53.5 sec Travel Speed 36.9 km/h 36.9 km/h Cost (Total)1083.85 $/h 1083.85 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total)129.1 L/h Carbon Dioxide (Total)323.1 kg/h Hydrocarbons (Total)0.532 kg/h Carbon Monoxide (Total)21.90 kg/h NOx (Total)0.644 kg/h Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Intersection Performance - Annual Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)1,020,000 veh/y 1,274,400 pers/y Delay 2,832 veh-h/y 3,399 pers-h/y Effective Stops 948,848 veh/y 1,138,618 pers/y Travel Distance 581,832 veh-km/y 698,198 pers-km/y Travel Time 15,775 veh-h/y 18,930 pers-h/y Cost 520,249 $/y 520,249 $/y Fuel Consumption 61,983 L/y Carbon Dioxide 155,081 kg/y Hydrocarbons 255 kg/y Carbon Monoxide 10,512 kg/y NOx 309 kg/y Processed: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:47:17 AM SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.12.2089 Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com Packet Page 370 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 11: Main St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 230 70 150 230 40 50 330 150 20 250 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1800 1807 1783 1839 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.74 0.94 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1645 1354 1692 1755 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 250 76 163 250 43 54 359 163 22 272 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 00600240050 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 365 0 0 450 0 0 552 0 0 311 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)21.2 21.2 21.0 21.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.2 21.2 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)695 572 708 734 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.33 c0.33 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.79 0.78 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 12.5 12.6 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.0 5.4 0.4 Delay (s)11.5 19.6 18.0 10.7 Level of Service BBBB Approach Delay (s)11.5 19.6 18.0 10.7 Approach LOS BBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 371 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 12: Walnut St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 60 20 90 70 70 30 620 70 50 490 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.96 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1794 1752 1834 1850 Flt Permitted 0.93 0.86 0.97 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1542 1780 1679 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 65 22 98 76 76 33 674 76 54 533 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 27 0070010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 94 0 0 223 0 0 776 0 0 597 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)11.7 11.7 28.1 28.1 Effective Green, g (s)12.7 12.7 29.1 29.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)450 410 1084 1022 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.14 c0.44 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.54 0.72 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 15.1 6.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.5 2.3 0.9 Delay (s)13.9 16.5 8.8 6.5 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)13.9 16.5 8.8 6.5 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.8 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 372 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 13: Main St & 3rd Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 110 20 50 180 30 70 180 40 60 310 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1634 1807 1810 Flt Permitted 0.70 0.92 0.84 0.93 Satd. Flow (perm) 1299 1511 1529 1687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 120 22 54 196 33 76 196 43 65 337 76 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 305 0 0 283 0 0 315 0 0 478 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8426 Permitted Phases 8426 Actuated Green, G (s)10.0 10.0 16.4 16.4 Effective Green, g (s)11.0 11.0 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)415 483 773 853 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.19 0.21 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.59 0.41 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.8 5.3 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.4 6.4 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.4 6.4 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 373 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 14: 220th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 120 330 50 140 600 270 140 1680 250 500 1660 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 130 359 54 152 652 293 152 1826 272 543 1804 185 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000600064 Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 413 0 152 652 293 152 1826 212 543 1804 121 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 17.7 10.3 20.0 20.0 10.3 57.9 57.9 17.1 64.7 64.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 18.7 11.3 21.0 21.0 11.3 59.9 59.9 18.1 66.7 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 541 167 619 277 167 1767 790 518 1967 880 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.09 c0.52 c0.16 0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.13 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.76 0.91 1.05 1.06 0.91 1.03 0.27 1.05 0.92 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 48.5 53.8 49.5 49.5 53.8 30.1 17.4 51.0 24.1 12.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 70.4 6.3 44.5 51.0 70.1 44.5 30.5 0.2 52.8 7.3 0.1 Delay (s)125.8 54.9 98.3 100.5 119.6 98.3 60.6 17.6 103.7 31.4 12.9 Level of Service F D FFFFEBFCB Approach Delay (s)71.8 105.3 57.9 45.6 Approach LOS E F E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 374 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 15: 220th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 290 50 80 430 510 30 420 40 220 480 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1822 1848 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 195 1822 1634 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 315 54 87 467 554 33 457 43 239 522 130 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000098030000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 369 0 0 554 457 33 497 0 239 652 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.3 57.3 41.0 41.0 3.5 34.7 16.0 47.2 Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 42.0 42.0 4.5 35.7 17.0 48.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 885 572 554 66 547 251 726 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.20 0.02 0.27 c0.14 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.34 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.42 0.97 0.82 0.50 0.91 0.95 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 23.7 19.9 38.4 35.6 56.6 40.6 51.1 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.3 29.4 9.7 5.8 18.9 43.5 13.8 Delay (s)27.5 20.2 67.8 45.3 62.5 59.5 94.6 47.4 Level of Service C C E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)22.4 56.5 59.7 60.1 Approach LOS C E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 375 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 16: 220th St SW & 84th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 240 10 50 420 120 60 340 50 130 130 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1851 1770 1801 1770 1827 1779 Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.64 Satd. Flow (perm) 481 1851 1051 1801 1055 1827 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 261 11 54 457 130 65 370 54 141 141 65 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 272 0 54 587 0 65 424 0 0 347 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 788 448 767 432 748 472 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.33 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.05 0.06 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.35 0.12 0.77 0.15 0.57 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 7.0 6.3 8.9 6.8 8.3 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.1 4.6 0.2 1.0 5.9 Delay (s)7.8 7.3 6.4 13.5 6.9 9.3 15.0 Level of Service A A A B A A B Approach Delay (s)7.4 12.9 8.9 15.0 Approach LOS ABAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 376 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 17: Elm Wy & 9th Ave S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 30 5 90 40 160 5 650 140 100 420 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1425 1620 1425 1676 1425 1593 1671 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 1425 1620 1425 1672 1425 383 1671 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 33 5 98 43 174 5 707 152 109 457 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000138000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 44 5 0 141 36 0 712 152 109 468 0 Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 444888 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 4.2 11.7 11.7 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 Effective Green, g (s)6.2 6.2 13.7 13.7 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)154 132 333 293 948 808 217 947 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.00 c0.09 0.03 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 0.11 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.04 0.42 0.12 0.75 0.19 0.50 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 27.5 23.1 21.6 10.9 7.0 8.8 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 3.4 0.1 1.8 0.4 Delay (s)29.2 27.7 23.9 21.8 14.3 7.1 10.6 9.1 Level of Service C C C C BABA Approach Delay (s)29.1 22.7 13.0 9.4 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 377 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 730 190 180 760 270 280 540 150 230 350 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3429 1770 3400 1770 3424 1770 3497 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3429 1770 3400 1770 3424 1770 3497 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 793 207 196 826 293 304 587 163 250 380 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 1000 0 196 1119 0 304 750 0 250 413 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 28.1 14.6 38.8 16.0 22.3 14.0 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 4.9 30.6 15.6 41.3 17.0 24.8 15.0 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.31 0.16 0.42 0.17 0.25 0.15 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)89 1071 282 1433 307 866 271 814 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.29 c0.11 0.33 c0.17 c0.22 0.14 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.61 0.93 0.70 0.78 0.99 0.87 0.92 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 32.7 39.0 24.4 40.4 35.0 40.9 32.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.2 14.2 7.2 2.8 48.6 9.1 34.6 0.5 Delay (s)56.8 46.9 46.2 27.3 89.0 44.1 75.5 33.2 Level of Service E D D C F D E C Approach Delay (s)47.4 30.1 57.0 49.2 Approach LOS D C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 378 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 19: 238th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 200 50 150 30 50 20 290 1610 40 60 1420 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1791 1583 1785 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.67 1.00 0.81 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1252 1583 1476 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 217 54 163 33 54 22 315 1750 43 65 1543 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 122 0 10 0 0 0 18 0 0 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 41 0 99 0 315 1750 25 65 1543 71 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 17.4 50.0 50.0 5.1 37.7 37.7 Effective Green, g (s)22.9 22.9 22.9 17.9 52.5 52.5 5.6 40.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)319 403 376 352 2064 923 110 1581 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.49 0.04 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.10 0.26 0.89 0.85 0.03 0.59 0.98 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 25.7 26.8 35.1 15.5 7.9 41.1 24.4 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.6 0.1 0.4 23.8 4.6 0.1 8.2 17.6 0.3 Delay (s)50.5 25.8 27.2 59.0 20.0 8.0 49.3 42.0 14.7 Level of Service D C C E C A D D B Approach Delay (s)41.2 27.2 25.6 39.9 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 379 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 20: 238th St SW & Edmonds Wy HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 10 20 5 230 20 1340 70 90 960 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1790 1583 1770 3513 1770 3534 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.82 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1649 1536 1583 1770 3513 1770 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 11 22 5 250 22 1457 76 98 1043 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)09000124050010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 0 0 27 126 22 1528 0 98 1053 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s)9.4 9.4 9.4 0.7 31.6 3.1 34.0 Effective Green, g (s)10.4 10.4 10.4 1.7 32.6 4.1 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.58 0.07 0.62 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)306 285 293 54 2041 129 2205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.43 c0.06 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.43 0.41 0.75 0.76 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 18.9 20.2 26.7 8.7 25.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 1.0 4.9 1.5 22.3 0.2 Delay (s)18.8 19.1 21.2 31.7 10.3 47.8 5.8 Level of Service B B C C B D A Approach Delay (s)18.8 21.0 10.6 9.4 Approach LOS B C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 380 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 21: 244th St SW & 76th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 19 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 1690 80 370 1770 160 190 230 380 100 160 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 3433 3495 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 3433 3495 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1837 87 402 1924 174 207 250 413 109 174 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000560029 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1924 0 402 2098 0 207 250 357 109 174 4 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52316 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 80.9 17.0 94.3 17.0 25.0 42.0 9.2 17.2 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 82.9 18.0 96.3 18.0 26.0 44.0 10.2 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.56 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 1954 414 2257 214 325 499 121 227 193 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.55 c0.12 0.60 c0.12 c0.13 c0.09 0.06 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.98 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.77 0.71 0.90 0.77 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 71.8 32.5 65.3 23.4 65.3 58.7 46.9 68.9 63.4 57.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.5 16.7 36.5 7.4 51.6 10.5 4.8 52.3 14.3 0.0 Delay (s)122.2 49.2 101.8 30.8 116.9 69.2 51.8 121.2 77.7 57.7 Level of Service F D F C F E D F E E Approach Delay (s)50.8 42.2 72.3 90.6 Approach LOS D D E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 381 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 22: 244th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 280 230 130 340 440 320 120 1370 130 80 870 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 304 250 141 370 478 348 130 1489 141 87 946 152 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000010000710049 Lane Group Flow (vph) 304 391 0 370 478 248 130 1489 70 87 946 103 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 15.1 20.0 17.9 17.9 9.4 42.3 42.3 4.7 37.6 37.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.2 17.1 21.0 19.9 19.9 10.4 42.3 43.3 5.7 37.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.43 0.44 0.06 0.38 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 578 375 711 318 186 1511 692 102 1343 617 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.12 c0.21 0.14 c0.07 c0.42 c0.05 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.99 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.70 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 38.4 38.9 36.6 37.5 42.8 28.1 16.4 46.3 26.0 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 3.1 42.5 2.5 11.7 10.9 19.6 0.1 45.9 1.7 0.1 Delay (s)73.1 41.5 81.4 39.1 49.2 53.7 47.7 16.5 92.2 27.7 19.9 Level of Service E D F DDDDBFCB Approach Delay (s)55.3 55.1 45.6 31.5 Approach LOS E E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 382 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 23: 238th St. SW & 100th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 21 Movement EBL EBR EBR2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 NEL NER Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 80 10 110 130 840 220 270 150 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3191 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3191 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 11 120 141 913 239 293 163 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 0 0 0 43 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 59 0 141 913 652 0000 Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 6.1 25.3 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 6.1 26.3 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 712 637 165 1423 1025 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.08 c0.26 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.09 0.85 0.64 0.90dr Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 12.1 29.2 15.8 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.73 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 27.6 0.8 1.3 Delay (s)12.4 12.2 60.5 12.2 20.2 Level of Service B B E B C Approach Delay (s) 12.3 18.7 20.2 0.0 Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 383 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 24: 238th St. SW & Firdale Av.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 22 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 30 30 20 20 20 30 540 20 10 230 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1769 1750 1770 3520 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1306 1487 1770 3520 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 33 33 22 22 22 33 587 22 11 250 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0400130040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 508 0 0 53 0 33 605 0 11 250 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s)26.3 26.3 6.1 25.3 0.8 20.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.3 26.3 6.1 26.3 0.8 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.01 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)525 598 165 1416 22 1136 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.17 0.01 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.09 0.20 0.43 0.50 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 12.1 27.4 14.1 32.1 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.78 Incremental Delay, d2 30.7 0.1 0.6 0.2 13.1 0.1 Delay (s)49.9 12.2 28.0 14.3 53.8 12.7 Level of Service D B C B D B Approach Delay (s)49.9 12.2 15.0 14.4 Approach LOS D B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 384 of 787 SYNCHRO/SIDRA REPORTS ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE Packet Page 385 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 1: 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr.HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 30 90 641 881 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 33 98 697 958 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1872 979 1001 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 979 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 892 vCu, unblocked vol 1872 979 1001 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 89 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 252 303 692 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 65 98 697 1001 Volume Left 33 98 0 0 Volume Right 33 0 0 43 cSH 275 692 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.14 0.41 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 12 0 0 Control Delay (s)22.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 Packet Page 386 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 2: Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 340 10 221 340 60 10 213 391 70 50 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1821 1701 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 841 1821 1696 1227 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 370 11 240 370 65 11 232 425 76 54 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)0200110010900160 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 412 0 240 424 0 0 559 0 0 147 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)18.7 18.7 18.7 19.6 19.6 Effective Green, g (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)751 358 775 755 546 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.29 c0.33 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.67 0.55 0.74 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 10.7 10.0 10.6 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 4.9 0.8 3.8 0.3 Delay (s)10.8 15.6 10.8 14.5 8.4 Level of Service B B B B A Approach Delay (s)10.8 12.5 14.5 8.4 Approach LOS BBBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.3 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 387 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 3: 196th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 134 680 50 315 890 210 160 340 212 170 141 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3344 3357 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3344 3357 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 146 739 54 342 967 228 174 370 230 185 153 87 RTOR Reduction (vph)060022005200260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 787 0 342 1173 0 0 722 0 0 399 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 21.2 17.8 31.0 18.0 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 22.2 18.8 32.0 19.0 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.21 0.36 0.22 0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 886 379 1253 724 604 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.22 c0.19 c0.34 c0.22 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.89 0.90 0.94 1.00 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 31.6 33.6 26.9 34.4 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.4 10.8 23.9 12.9 32.6 2.7 Delay (s)61.0 42.4 57.5 39.8 67.0 36.2 Level of Service E D E D E D Approach Delay (s)45.3 43.7 67.0 36.2 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.8 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 388 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 4: Puget Dr & 88th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 41 582 11 100 580 120 32 72 100 40 72 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1858 1770 1815 1726 1763 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.93 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 420 1858 566 1815 1623 1632 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 633 12 109 630 130 35 78 109 43 78 54 RTOR Reduction (vph)010013005900270 Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 644 0 109 747 0 0 163 0 0 148 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 10.7 10.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1074 327 1050 439 441 v/s Ratio Prot 0.35 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.19 c0.10 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.60 0.33 0.71 0.37 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 5.4 4.4 6.0 11.7 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.5 Delay (s)4.3 6.3 5.0 8.3 12.3 12.1 Level of Service A A A A B B Approach Delay (s)6.2 7.9 12.3 12.1 Approach LOS AABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 389 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 5: Puget Dr & Olympic View Dr.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 411 496 500 12 32 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1857 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 716 1863 1857 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 447 539 543 13 35 359 RTOR Reduction (vph)00100271 Lane Group Flow (vph) 447 539 555 0 35 88 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.0 55.0 55.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 1242 1238 433 387 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 0.30 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.43 0.45 0.08 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 7.0 7.1 26.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.2 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.4 Delay (s)41.5 8.1 8.3 26.6 28.6 Level of Service D A A C C Approach Delay (s)23.3 8.3 28.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 390 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 6: Caspers St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 420 30 276 550 12 593 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 749 1863 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 457 33 300 598 13 645 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 223 Lane Group Flow (vph) 457 17 300 598 13 422 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 971 825 391 971 631 564 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.32 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.40 c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.77 0.62 0.02 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 7.5 5.7 9.4 8.3 10.2 13.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 8.7 1.2 0.0 5.4 Delay (s) 7.8 5.7 18.1 9.5 10.3 19.2 Level of Service AABABB Approach Delay (s) 7.7 12.3 19.1 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 391 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 7: 208th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 5 380 0 250 5 664 500 90 326 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1770 1583 1862 1583 3501 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1770 1583 1858 1583 2168 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 413 0 272 5 722 543 98 354 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0500183000183000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 0 413 89 0 0 727 360 0 452 0 Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 3 3 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.3 28.2 28.2 44.7 44.7 44.7 Effective Green, g (s)1.3 29.2 28.2 45.7 45.7 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.34 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)26 600 518 985 839 1149 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.23 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.69 0.17 0.74 0.43 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 24.6 20.7 15.6 12.3 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)51.4 27.9 20.8 18.6 12.7 12.2 Level of Service D C C B B B Approach Delay (s)51.4 25.1 16.0 12.2 Approach LOS D C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.2 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 392 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 8: 212th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 232 380 90 160 405 140 152 1780 210 140 1629 192 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3437 1770 3403 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3437 1770 3403 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 252 413 98 174 440 152 165 1935 228 152 1771 209 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000580058 Lane Group Flow (vph) 252 511 0 174 592 0 165 1935 170 152 1771 151 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 29.3 18.7 25.1 12.9 70.5 70.5 11.5 69.1 69.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 30.8 20.2 26.6 13.4 73.0 73.0 12.0 71.6 71.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 715 242 612 160 1746 781 144 1712 766 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.15 0.10 c0.17 c0.09 c0.55 0.09 0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.71 0.72 0.97 1.03 1.11 0.22 1.06 1.03 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 60.2 54.5 61.2 60.3 67.3 37.5 21.3 68.0 38.2 21.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.5 2.8 8.2 27.9 79.6 57.6 0.2 90.6 31.2 0.1 Delay (s)81.7 57.4 69.4 88.2 146.9 95.1 21.5 158.6 69.4 21.9 Level of Service F E E F F F C F E C Approach Delay (s)65.4 83.9 91.6 71.1 Approach LOS E F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 80.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 148.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 393 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 9: 212th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 254 387 112 180 480 120 169 760 140 100 390 216 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3350 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3350 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 276 421 122 196 522 130 184 826 152 109 424 235 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 88 0 14 0 0 71 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 276 421 36 196 522 42 184 964 0 109 588 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 30.4 30.4 14.7 29.1 29.1 13.3 29.0 11.6 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 31.4 31.4 15.7 30.1 30.1 14.3 30.0 12.6 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 285 553 470 263 531 451 239 981 211 897 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.23 0.11 c0.28 c0.10 c0.28 0.06 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.76 0.08 0.75 0.98 0.09 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 33.7 26.7 43.1 37.5 27.8 44.1 37.6 43.7 34.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 44.1 6.1 0.1 10.9 34.5 0.1 13.9 24.5 2.1 1.7 Delay (s)88.2 39.9 26.8 54.0 72.0 27.9 58.0 62.1 45.8 36.1 Level of Service F D C D E C E E D D Approach Delay (s)54.2 61.1 61.4 37.5 Approach LOS D E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 394 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 10: Main St & 84th Av. W HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL2 WBL WBT WBR NBL2 NBL NBT NBR Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 220 230 110 10 170 230 20 20 150 120 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 239 250 120 11 185 250 22 22 163 130 120 Approach Volume (veh/h) 707 467 435 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 462 467 641 High Capacity (veh/h) 962 958 833 High v/c (veh/h) 0.73 0.49 0.52 Low Capacity (veh/h) 780 776 666 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.91 0.60 0.65 Intersection Summary Maximum v/c High 0.73 Maximum v/c Low 0.91 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.5% ICU Level of Service H Movement SBL SBT SBR SBR2 NEL2 NEL NER NER2 Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 130 5 40 40 10 140 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 141 5 43 43 11 152 22 Approach Volume (veh/h) 288 228 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 674 837 High Capacity (veh/h) 812 711 High v/c (veh/h) 0.35 0.32 Low Capacity (veh/h) 647 559 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.45 0.41 Intersection Summary Packet Page 395 of 787 Unlicensed Trial Version INTERSECTION SUMMARY Site: Rou 5-way Star 1-Lane R Roundabout with 5 legs, and 1-lane approaches and circulating road Roundabout Intersection Performance - Hourly Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)2191 veh/h 2735 pers/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0 % Degree of Saturation 0.780 Practical Spare Capacity 8.9 % Effective Intersection Capacity 2809 veh/h Control Delay (Total)6.70 veh-h/h 8.04 pers-h/h Control Delay (Average)11.0 sec 10.6 sec Control Delay (Worst Lane)12.8 sec Control Delay (Worst Movement)12.8 sec 12.8 sec Geometric Delay (Average)P sec Stop-Line Delay (Average)P sec Intersection Level of Service (LOS)LOS B 95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane)11.3 veh 95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane)80.8 m Total Effective Stops 2159 veh/h 2591 pers/h Effective Stop Rate 0.99 per veh 0.95 per pers Proportion Queued 0.89 0.86 Performance Index 57.8 57.8 Travel Distance (Total)1250.6 veh-km/h 1500.8 pers-km/h Travel Distance (Average)571 m 549 m Travel Time (Total)34.5 veh-h/h 41.4 pers-h/h Travel Time (Average)56.6 sec 54.5 sec Travel Speed 36.3 km/h 36.3 km/h Cost (Total)1136.02 $/h 1136.02 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total)134.7 L/h Carbon Dioxide (Total)337.0 kg/h Hydrocarbons (Total)0.558 kg/h Carbon Monoxide (Total)22.95 kg/h NOx (Total)0.672 kg/h P: You need to Process this Site (F9) for this variable to be computed. Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Intersection Performance - Annual Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)1,051,826 veh/y 1,312,591 pers/y Delay 3,216 veh-h/y 3,859 pers-h/y Effective Stops 1,036,348 veh/y 1,243,617 pers/y Travel Distance 600,307 veh-km/y 720,368 pers-km/y Travel Time 16,548 veh-h/y 19,857 pers-h/y Cost 545,289 $/y 545,289 $/y Fuel Consumption 64,661 L/y Carbon Dioxide 161,782 kg/y Hydrocarbons 268 kg/y Carbon Monoxide 11,016 kg/y NOx 323 kg/y Packet Page 396 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 11: Main St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 233 70 151 233 40 50 356 157 20 263 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1800 1807 1785 1840 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.73 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1647 1341 1696 1755 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 253 76 164 253 43 54 387 171 22 286 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 00600240050 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 368 0 0 454 0 0 588 0 0 325 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)21.7 21.7 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.7 21.7 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)691 563 722 747 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.34 c0.35 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.81 0.82 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 13.2 13.1 10.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 8.2 7.0 0.4 Delay (s)12.0 21.4 20.1 10.9 Level of Service B C C B Approach Delay (s)12.0 21.4 20.1 10.9 Approach LOS B C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 397 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 12: Walnut St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 65 20 95 72 70 30 653 81 50 504 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.96 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1753 1832 1850 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.87 0.97 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1701 1547 1779 1672 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 71 22 103 78 76 33 710 88 54 548 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 26 0070010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 0 0 231 0 0 824 0 0 612 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)12.1 12.1 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s)13.1 13.1 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)449 409 1094 1028 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.15 c0.46 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.57 0.75 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 15.8 6.8 5.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.8 3.0 0.9 Delay (s)14.5 17.6 9.8 6.7 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)14.5 17.6 9.8 6.7 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 398 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 13: Main St & 3rd Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 112 20 50 180 30 70 193 40 60 316 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1634 1809 1811 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.92 0.84 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 1302 1511 1538 1686 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 122 22 54 196 33 76 210 43 65 343 76 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 307 0 0 283 0 0 329 0 0 484 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8426 Permitted Phases 8426 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s)11.1 11.1 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)418 485 778 853 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.19 0.21 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.42 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.8 5.4 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.5 6.4 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.5 6.4 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 399 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 14: 220th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 141 330 53 140 595 270 143 1682 250 500 1660 179 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3465 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3465 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 153 359 58 152 647 293 155 1828 272 543 1804 195 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000600068 Lane Group Flow (vph) 153 417 0 152 647 293 155 1828 212 543 1804 127 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 17.7 10.3 20.0 20.0 10.3 57.9 57.9 17.1 64.7 64.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 18.7 11.3 21.0 21.0 11.3 59.9 59.9 18.1 66.7 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 540 167 619 277 167 1767 790 518 1967 880 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.09 c0.52 c0.16 0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.13 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.15 0.77 0.91 1.05 1.06 0.93 1.03 0.27 1.05 0.92 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 48.6 53.8 49.5 49.5 53.9 30.1 17.4 51.0 24.1 12.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 124.1 6.8 44.5 48.5 70.1 48.5 30.9 0.2 52.8 7.3 0.1 Delay (s)179.6 55.4 98.3 98.0 119.6 102.5 60.9 17.6 103.7 31.4 12.9 Level of Service F E FFFFEBFCB Approach Delay (s)88.7 103.9 58.6 45.4 Approach LOS F F E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 63.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 400 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 15: 220th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 312 50 80 438 509 30 420 40 222 480 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1824 1848 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 178 1824 1628 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 339 54 87 476 553 33 457 43 241 522 130 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000098030000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 393 0 0 563 456 33 497 0 241 652 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.3 57.3 41.0 41.0 3.5 34.7 16.0 47.2 Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 42.0 42.0 4.5 35.7 17.0 48.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 886 570 554 66 547 251 726 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.02 0.27 c0.14 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.35 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.44 0.99 0.82 0.50 0.91 0.96 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 20.2 38.7 35.6 56.6 40.6 51.2 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.4 34.2 9.6 5.8 18.9 45.6 13.8 Delay (s)28.3 20.6 72.9 45.1 62.5 59.5 96.8 47.4 Level of Service C C E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)22.8 59.2 59.7 60.8 Approach LOS C E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 401 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 16: 220th St SW & 84th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 66 269 10 50 431 121 60 341 50 132 131 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1853 1770 1801 1770 1827 1777 Flt Permitted 0.25 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.63 Satd. Flow (perm) 475 1853 985 1801 1041 1827 1147 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 292 11 54 468 132 65 371 54 143 142 71 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 303 0 54 600 0 65 425 0 0 356 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.1 14.1 14.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 791 420 768 427 750 471 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.33 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 0.06 c0.31 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.38 0.13 0.78 0.15 0.57 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 7.2 6.4 9.1 6.8 8.3 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.3 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.0 6.8 Delay (s)8.2 7.5 6.5 14.3 7.0 9.3 16.1 Level of Service A A A B A A B Approach Delay (s)7.7 13.6 9.0 16.1 Approach LOS ABAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.8 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 402 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 17: Elm Wy & 9th Ave S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 30 5 111 40 160 5 695 180 100 440 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1425 1617 1425 1676 1425 1593 1671 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 1425 1617 1425 1672 1425 377 1671 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 33 5 121 43 174 5 755 196 109 478 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000142000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 44 5 0 164 32 0 760 196 109 489 0 Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 444888 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.8 4.8 12.3 12.3 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s)6.8 6.8 14.3 14.3 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)146 126 300 264 1019 869 230 1019 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.00 c0.10 0.02 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 0.14 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.04 0.55 0.12 0.75 0.23 0.47 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 32.2 28.5 26.2 10.8 6.8 8.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 2.0 0.2 3.0 0.1 1.5 0.4 Delay (s)34.1 32.3 30.5 26.4 13.8 6.9 9.8 8.7 Level of Service C C C C BAAA Approach Delay (s)33.9 28.4 12.4 8.9 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 403 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 73 759 201 214 780 311 291 575 191 267 369 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 3407 1770 3489 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 3407 1770 3489 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 825 218 233 848 338 316 625 208 290 401 42 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 1043 0 233 1186 0 316 833 0 290 443 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 34.4 16.5 45.3 22.6 27.5 18.0 22.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 36.9 17.5 47.8 23.6 30.0 19.0 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.15 0.41 0.20 0.26 0.16 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 101 1096 268 1403 362 886 291 768 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.30 c0.13 0.35 c0.18 c0.24 c0.16 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.78 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.94 1.00 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 53.7 38.4 47.8 30.5 44.4 41.8 48.2 40.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31.6 16.8 24.5 4.9 20.0 17.5 51.5 1.1 Delay (s)85.3 55.2 72.3 35.3 64.5 59.3 99.6 41.3 Level of Service F E E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)57.3 41.4 60.7 64.4 Approach LOS E D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.4 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 404 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 19: 238th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 214 76 150 30 76 20 290 1615 40 60 1423 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1583 1801 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.65 1.00 0.80 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1211 1583 1462 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 233 83 163 33 83 22 315 1755 43 65 1547 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 118 08000190088 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 316 45 0 130 0 315 1755 24 65 1547 76 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)24.5 24.5 24.5 16.2 48.2 48.2 4.8 36.8 36.8 Effective Green, g (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 16.7 50.7 50.7 5.3 39.3 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)336 440 406 328 1994 892 104 1545 691 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.50 0.04 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.10 0.32 0.96 0.88 0.03 0.62 1.00 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 24.2 25.8 36.3 17.0 8.7 41.4 25.4 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.8 0.1 0.5 39.0 6.0 0.1 11.1 23.2 0.3 Delay (s)65.6 24.3 26.2 75.4 23.0 8.8 52.5 48.6 15.3 Level of Service E C C E C A D D B Approach Delay (s)51.5 26.2 30.5 45.6 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 405 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 20: 238th St SW & Edmonds Wy HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 10 20 5 267 20 1395 70 130 993 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1790 1583 1770 3514 1770 3534 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.83 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1654 1549 1583 1770 3514 1770 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 11 22 5 290 22 1516 76 141 1079 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)09000119050010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 0 0 27 171 22 1587 0 141 1089 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 10.4 10.4 0.7 30.8 4.0 34.1 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 1.7 31.8 5.0 35.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.56 0.09 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)330 309 315 53 1954 155 2169 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.45 c0.08 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.54 0.42 0.81 0.91 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 18.7 20.6 27.3 10.3 25.9 6.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 1.9 5.2 2.7 46.1 0.2 Delay (s)18.5 18.8 22.5 32.5 13.0 71.9 6.4 Level of Service B B C C B E A Approach Delay (s)18.5 22.1 13.2 13.9 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.2 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 406 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 21: 244th St SW & 76th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 19 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 1718 80 370 1800 160 190 230 380 100 160 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3516 3433 3496 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3516 3433 3496 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1867 87 402 1957 174 207 250 413 109 174 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000560029 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1954 0 402 2131 0 207 250 357 109 174 4 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52316 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 80.9 17.0 94.3 17.0 25.0 42.0 9.2 17.2 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 82.9 18.0 96.3 18.0 26.0 44.0 10.2 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.56 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 1955 414 2258 214 325 499 121 227 193 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.56 c0.12 0.61 c0.12 c0.13 c0.09 0.06 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.77 0.71 0.90 0.77 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 71.8 33.1 65.3 23.9 65.3 58.7 46.9 68.9 63.4 57.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.5 20.1 36.5 8.9 51.6 10.5 4.8 52.3 14.3 0.0 Delay (s)122.2 53.2 101.8 32.9 116.9 69.2 51.8 121.2 77.7 57.7 Level of Service F D F C F E D F E E Approach Delay (s)54.6 43.8 72.3 90.6 Approach LOS D D E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 407 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 22: 244th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 280 230 130 340 440 320 120 1379 130 80 878 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 304 250 141 370 478 348 130 1499 141 87 954 152 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000010000700049 Lane Group Flow (vph) 304 391 0 370 478 248 130 1499 71 87 954 103 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 15.1 20.0 17.9 17.9 9.4 42.3 42.3 4.7 37.6 37.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.2 17.1 21.0 19.9 19.9 10.4 42.3 43.3 5.7 37.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.43 0.44 0.06 0.38 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 578 375 711 318 186 1511 692 102 1343 617 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.12 c0.21 0.14 c0.07 c0.42 c0.05 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.99 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.71 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 38.4 38.9 36.6 37.5 42.8 28.2 16.4 46.3 26.1 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 3.1 42.5 2.5 11.7 10.9 21.2 0.1 45.9 1.8 0.1 Delay (s)73.1 41.5 81.4 39.1 49.2 53.7 49.4 16.5 92.2 27.9 19.9 Level of Service E D F DDDDBFCB Approach Delay (s)55.3 55.1 47.1 31.6 Approach LOS E E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 408 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 23: 238th St. SW & 100th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 21 Movement EBL EBR EBR2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 NEL NER Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 93 10 110 130 855 233 285 163 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3190 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3190 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 101 11 120 141 929 253 310 177 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 0 0 0 44 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 59 0 141 929 696 0000 Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 6.0 25.5 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 6.0 26.5 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 710 635 162 1430 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.08 c0.26 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.09 0.87 0.65 0.95dr Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 12.2 29.4 15.8 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.73 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 31.0 0.8 1.7 Delay (s)12.6 12.3 64.3 12.4 20.9 Level of Service B B E B C Approach Delay (s) 12.4 19.2 20.9 0.0 Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 409 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 24: 238th St. SW & Firdale Av.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 22 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 30 30 20 20 20 30 555 20 10 243 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1769 1750 1770 3521 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1306 1487 1770 3521 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 33 33 22 22 22 33 603 22 11 264 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0400130040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 508 0 0 53 0 33 621 0 11 264 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s)26.3 26.3 6.0 25.5 0.8 20.3 Effective Green, g (s)26.3 26.3 6.0 26.5 0.8 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.01 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)524 596 162 1422 22 1149 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.18 0.01 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.09 0.20 0.44 0.50 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 12.2 27.6 14.2 32.2 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 0.82 Incremental Delay, d2 31.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 12.4 0.1 Delay (s)50.4 12.3 28.2 14.4 53.0 13.4 Level of Service D B C B D B Approach Delay (s)50.4 12.3 15.1 15.0 Approach LOS D B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 410 of 787 SYNCHRO REPORT ANALYSIS OF EDMONDS WAY/100TH AVENUE E WITH PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE AND 100TH AVENUE W ROAD DIET Packet Page 411 of 787 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Impr+100th Ave Road Diet 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 73 759 201 214 780 311 291 575 191 267 369 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 1793 1770 1836 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.10 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3428 1770 3388 381 1793 186 1836 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 825 218 233 848 338 316 625 208 290 401 42 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 1043 0 233 1186 0 316 833 0 290 443 0 Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 29.8 16.7 41.5 58.5 45.5 48.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 32.3 17.7 44.0 59.5 48.0 50.0 41.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.27 0.15 0.37 0.50 0.40 0.42 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)89 923 261 1242 380 717 210 635 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.30 c0.13 0.35 c0.11 0.46 c0.12 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 c0.46 v/c Ratio 0.89 1.13 0.89 0.95 0.83 1.16 1.38 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 56.7 43.9 50.2 37.0 22.7 36.0 32.2 33.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 59.4 72.2 29.4 15.9 14.3 87.8 198.3 3.3 Delay (s)116.0 116.1 79.6 52.9 37.0 123.8 230.5 37.2 Level of Service F F E D D F F D Approach Delay (s)116.1 57.3 99.9 113.7 Approach LOS F E F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 92.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 412 of 787 ATTACHMENT C PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS – COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Packet Page 413 of 787 Table C-1. Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025 Project Category/Location Improvement Jurisdiction Concurrency Projects by 2015 4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W Install traffic signal.1 Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Ave W (Currently in design phase) Install a single-lane roundabout. Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave W Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage length. Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Ave W (Currently in design phase) Widen 76th to add a northbound left turn lane for 250-foot storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Ave W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a through-right lane. Change eastbound and westbound phase to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound left turn. Provide right turn phase for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. Edmonds Concurrency Projects by 2025 1 174th St SW and Olympic View Dr Widen Olympic View Dr to add a northbound left turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N Install traffic signal. Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 220th to add westbound right turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Widen SR 99 add second southbound left turn lane for 275-foot storage length. Edmonds Packet Page 414 of 787 Project Category/Location Improvement Jurisdiction State Highway Improvement Projects 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way Install a signal and provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound. Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW and 76th Ave W Widen 244th to add second westbound left turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Provide right turn phase for northbound movement during westbound left turn phase. Edmonds/ WSDOT Safety Projects 228th Street SW, at SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (Currently in design phase) Construct connection of 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk). Install traffic signals at 228th Street SW / SR 99 and 228th Street SW / 76th Avenue W. Install median on SR 99 to prohibit southbound left turn movements at 76th Avenue W. Edmonds SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane and one through lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Edmonds 238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk. Edmonds 84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk. Edmonds/ Snohomish County SR 99 illumination Improve roadway safety with illumination. Edmonds Shell Valley New road to improve emergency vehicle access and non-motorized access. Edmonds Main Street and 3rd Avenue Upgrade signal to reduce conflicts with trucks. Edmonds Source: City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009. 1. Analysis indicates that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. 2. Analysis indicates that identified deficiencies could also be addressed by removal of parking along the entire length of 9th Avenue between the northbound approach of Walnut and the southbound approach of Main, and restriping and signing so that this section of 9th would be 4 lanes wide. This would result in two lanes of traffic at the northbound and southbound stop-controlled approaches of both intersections. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. Packet Page 415 of 787 APPROVED JUNE 25TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 11, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Carreen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles (excused) Ian Duncan (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Shane Holt, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, noted that she submitted written comments earlier in the day regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning, but wanted to read them to the Board so they could be included in the minutes. She observed that incentive zoning is the sweeping code changes adopted by cities with serious problems such as those in the rust-belt, the run- down areas of Seattle, and suburban towns seeking identity like Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline. In successful, popular Edmonds a form-based code and incentive zoning are solutions looking for a problem. The main topic the Planning Board should discuss is what problems in Edmonds are to be solved by replacing the successful, long-time existing code. She asked the Board to answer the following questions: Question 1: Can the original height limits of 25 feet for residential and 35 feet for commercial (with no bribes for this and that) be retained and still meet the goals listed on Pages 1 and 2 of the Westgate Plan dated May 14, 2014? If the answer is no, she asked them to explain which goals can’t be met and why. She pointed out that one of the goals is to establish a flexible regulating system (i.e. replace the existing code) that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. She questioned why quality public spaces can’t be created under the existing zoning code. Packet Page 416 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 2 The argument is made that the Growth Management Act requires greater density in Edmonds, and increased height limits make that possible. Therefore, the proposed zoning is justified. Has the Planning Board ever objectively discussed different ways to increase density? For example, they could rezone commercial or single-family zones to multi-family. Is it the Board’s opinion that only increased height limits will produce increased density? Why does the Board believe that approval of incentive zoning and the form-based code before them won’t produce more buildings like the Compass pair? The Mayor’s office negotiated a “flexible” development agreement that produced the existing Compass warehouses, and the proposal the Board is being asked to endorse simply formalizes his authority. What has changed to prevent more Compass buildings? Washington State Ferries plans to operate four, 144-car ferries daily on the Edmonds/Kingston run by 2030, and that will almost double the volume of ferry traffic through Westgate. What specific measures has the Board considered to address this growing problem? CONTINUED WORK ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave advised that the intent of this discussion is for the Board to arrive at a set of recommendations for the City Council. He recommended that the Board consider and take separate action on each of the following items: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (Attachment 1), which is intended to incorporate the Westgate Plan into the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Code Text Amendment (Attachment 2), which would create a new zoning classification of Westgate Mixed-Use (WMU) and provide additional design criteria that would apply to the new zone. Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 3), which would replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN), Commercial Business (BC) and Commercial Business – Edmonds Way (BC-EW) zoning at Westgate with the new WMU zoning. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 6, which contains a list of the criteria the Board must consider when making decisions related to Comprehensive Plan and Development Code (zoning) amendments. The criteria should be discussed by the Board when making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave advised that the code language highlighted in Attachment 2 show a number of technical corrections that are intended for clarification. It also includes helpful language changes that assist the code in being clearer to implement. None of the changes alter the purpose or way in which the code works. He also advised that a code amendment contained in Attachment 2 references the Edmonds Green Factor Tools that are contained in Attachment 4. These tools would be adopted into the code by reference. Mr. Chave recalled that, at the May 28th hearing, numerous people testified about the need to protect the existing slopes and vegetation to help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential properties. He referred to the map showing “Westgate Protected Slopes” (Attachment 5), which attempts to provide greater definition in order to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential properties. The map provides specific contour lines, tied to topography, that define the limit of the developed area within the commercially-zoned properties of the WMU zone, and a cleaned-up version would be inserted into Page 30 of the draft code (Attachment 2). He explained that, as per the proposed map, development activity would not be allowed to intrude into the slopes beyond the contour lines, which are intended to be closer to where existing development is located. The goal is to not take away from what people are able to do on their properties, but ensure that buildings do not encroach further into the sloped areas than is already the case. Mr. Chave said another issue that warrants additional consideration is the property identified as Lot 23105 in the southeast quadrant, which was the topic of some discussion at the last public hearing. A contract rezone was approved for the property in 1985, requiring that the 45-foot natural area be retained. The question before the Board is whether the newly adopted zoning should reflect the earlier agreement and require a 45-foot setback, or should the setback be 30 feet as shown on the map of contour lines. He expressed his belief that because the Westgate Plan will allow for more intense development on the site, it would make sense for the zoning to respect the condition that was put in place in 1985 and push the setback line back an additional 15 feet to protect the slope and vegetation. Packet Page 417 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 3 Board Member Ellis asked if the proposed zoning amendment would override the contract rezone that was approved in 1985. Mr. Chave answered that the zoning amendment would replace the previous zoning. Because the contract runs with the zoning, if the zoning goes away, the contract would go away, as well. Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any sense of whether or not the proposed contour lines would be sufficient to preserve the integrity of the slopes. Mr. Chave said that is the intent. While development would be allowed into the slope to some degree, the bulk of the slope would be retained based on the proposed contour lines. Board Member Lovell asked staff to explain the elevation classes that are identified on the Westgate Protected Slopes Map. Mr. Chave said the green areas indicate where buildings in the commercial zone would be visible from residential properties on top of the slope. A 25-foot building would be visible from the areas identified in green, a 35-foot building from areas identified in orange, and a 45-foot building would be visible from properties identified in blue. He summarized that, the taller the buildings, the more visible they would be from the higher elevations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the map assumes there are no trees when, in fact, most of the sloped areas are vegetated. Mr. Chave said the contour lines are intended to ensure that sufficient trees are retained on the slopes to provide a buffer. Vice Chair Tibbott asked what the building setback would be for the commercial properties. Mr. Chave said the contour lines are intended to identify the building setback requirement. If the contour line is closer to the property line, a 15-foot standard setback would apply. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) Board Member Lovell commented that the Board has reviewed the proposed changes on previous occasions. He said he particularly supports the proposed language in C.2 and C.9, related to encouraging mixed-use development in a walkable community center and encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices to residents of all economic and age segments. Some members of the public have expressed concern about increasing density to accommodate residents and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. However, the real intent of the proposed amendments is to create a flexible system of zoning that accommodates a greater variety of housing options to meet the needs of the aging population, younger residents, and others who want to live, work and shop close to where public transportation is available. The proposed language provides flexibility to allow housing options in conjunction with retail, whereas the current BN zoning only allows residential uses in the form of single-family homes. It is not feasible or realistic for any of the property owners at Westgate to consider tearing down retail establishments to develop single-family homes. The proposed language will address this concern by allowing a mixture of multi-family residential and commercial development. Board Member Ellis said his only concern about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is that it opens an area that has been commercial for a long to a variety of residential uses. While the Board recognizes that is the type of development the City wants to encourage, it is also possible the change will allow the area to become more residential and less commercial. While he does not believe that will happen, it needs to be recognized as a possibility. Vice Chair Tibbott said the proposed amendment reflects the Board’s discussion to date, and he is grateful for staff’s hard work putting it together. However, he still remains concerned about walkability in the Westgate area after development occurs. While the traffic study indicated that traffic impacts would not be significant at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, he cannot help but think that especially pedestrian traffic will be impacted with more residential space in the area. At some point, the City will need to give specific consideration to encouraging pedestrian-friendly and other modes of transportation within the quadrants, perhaps through additional incentives. BOARD MEMBER STEWART ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Chave referred to Page 8 of the proposed Development Code Amendment (Attachment 2), which identifies where particular building types could be developed. Generally, the types of residential uses allowed at Westgate are targeted around the periphery of the property, with the more intense commercial uses in the central area. In fact, a certain amount of commercial space would be required in the central core area. Because the proposed code would allow more intense development, there would be opportunities for additional commercial development in addition to residential development. Board Member Ellis thanked Mr. Chave for this helpful observation. The point is that the proposed zoning represents what Packet Page 418 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 4 the City would like at Westgate, recognizing that the City does not have control over the type of development that will actually occur. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the proposed changes would not prevent more drugstore or bank development. Mr. Chave agreed, but clarified that development would look different because more pedestrian connections, amenities and open spaces would be required. Board Member Lovell recalled that some members of the public have expressed concern that introducing more residential development in the area would push retail uses out, and he does not think that would be the case given the property’s location and existing development. Mr. Chave agreed that the area is not likely to convert to a residential area. The Comprehensive Plan’s intent is to introduce opportunities for residential development in the mix of uses, which is a common trend in nearly all communities. Chair Cloutier recalled that one of the Board’s primary goals was to provide flexibility to land owners. While the proposed language includes mandates for open space and amenities, it does not overly constrain landowners. Rather than specifying how each piece of land should be used, it provides direction on how each development could be placed. This will prevent the area from being developed into one large apartment block. He said he does not believe the proposed changes would push out existing development, and he supports the Comprehensive Plan amendment as written. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (ATTACHMENT 6), THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ATTACHMENT 1) AS PRESENTED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0, WITH BOARD MEMBERS STEWART AND RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that she respects the four-year process in which the Board tackled the issue. Because she is a new member of the Board, she was not able to become familiar enough with the Board’s past work to participate in the vote. She supports the Board’s decision, but does not feel she should vote at this time. Board Member Stewart said she abstained from the vote because she was late to the meeting and was not able to hear the Board’s previous discussion. However, she expressed support for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Amendments (Attachment 2) Mr. Chave said Attachment 2 outlines proposed amendments to Chapters 16 and 22. Chapter 16 outlines the allowed uses, and the bulk of the design related requirements are contained in Chapter 22. Chair Cloutier asked where the Westgate Protected Slopes Map would be inserted into the development code. Mr. Chave answered that the map would be inserted into ECDC 22.110.070.C (Line 32 of Page 30). Board Member Lovell referred to the map in ECDC 22.110.010.B (Page 7), which identifies the parcels that are limited to two stories in height, as well as those that are eligible for the potential fourth story height bonus. He recalled that there was significant community concern about the height of buildings and how the adjacent residential properties would be impacted. He suggested that the map also identify the properties that are limited to three-story development. The Board concurred and Mr. Chave agreed to make this change. Board Member Lovell said some concern has been expressed about the loss of family-oriented amusement and entertainment type facilities in the City. It has been suggested that perhaps the development code for Westgate could include some incentives to encourage this type of use. Mr. Chave pointed out that, as currently proposed, amusement establishments would be allowed in the WMU zone as a conditional use. One option would be to change the table to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement and allow amusement establishments as outright permitted uses. He reviewed that a conditional use permit requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Generally, uses that require a conditional use permit have more activity than a normal business, and the conditional use permit process allows the City to place conditions on uses to mitigate their impacts. Chair Cloutier pointed out that the term “amusement establishment” is not defined in the code. Packet Page 419 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 5 Board Member Ellis said he is satisfied with Table 16.110.010, as written, which requires a conditional use permit for amusement establishments. This allows the City to have some review to make sure the proposed development fits with the goals of the Westgate Plan. It is also important to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on this type of use. Mr. Chave said the assumption is that conditional uses will be permitted, but the City will examine the particulars of the activity to determine if additional requirements are needed to reduce impacts. Chair Cloutier summarized that the majority of the Board supports Table 16.110.010 as written, which would neither encourage nor discourage the use, but would provide a process to make it happen. Board Member Rubenkonig requested clarification that the map in ECDC 22.110.010.B (Page 7), which identifies properties that are eligible for the fourth story height bonus, is the same as the map that was provided at the May 28th hearing. Mr. Chave answered that the steep slope line was changed, but the numbers remain the same. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan calls for encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments (Goal C.9). She expressed concern about eliminating the requirement for at least 10% small-sized development in ECDC 22.110.000 (Line 4 on Page 6). Mr. Chave explained that the language Board Member Stewart referenced is in the purpose section. Because the requirement is included in the housing section of the code, it was removed from the purpose section. Board Member Lovell questioned how the 10% requirement would be applied to smaller developments with commercial on the ground floor and residential units above. Mr. Chave said the requirement would be based on the number of residential units in the development. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 22.110.010.C.1 (Lines 2 through 8 on Page 10) and questioned the requirement that front yard trees in row house developments be no more than 1.5 times the height of the porch and that frontage landscaping at the street/sidewalk interface be no more than 1.5 times the height of the house. ECDC 22.110.010.C.6 (Lines 24 through 29) also restricts tree height in side-court mixed–use developments. She reminded the Board that trees provide a function of shade and reduced energy costs. She questioned if it is necessary to significantly restrict tree size. She expressed her belief that it would be clearer to regulate the height of trees by using a specific height limit because houses and porches differ in height and design. Board Member Ellis questioned the need to regulate the height of trees at all. He doubts a property owner would plant trees that are out of scale with his/her development. He cautioned against micromanaging the vegetation plan. Chair Cloutier pointed out that landscaping is considered part of the building envelope, and trees that are too large can impact adjacent properties. He suggested that tree height should be limited, but the code should allow flexibility in the types of trees that are planted. The majority of the Board recognized the need to limit the height of trees to minimize impacts to adjacent property owners. They agreed that the height limit for front yard trees should be set at 15 feet, and the height limit for trees near the sidewalk or travel way should be set at 30 feet. They directed staff to apply this standard for all the building types identified in the proposed code language. Board Member Ellis asked if existing trees would have to be removed if they are taller than the height limit allowed for the front yard. Mr. Chave answered that existing trees would be allowed to remain on the site, regardless of their height. Board Member Stewart also referred to ECDC 22.110.010.C.2 (Lines 7 and 8 on Page 12), which requires that courtyards be connected to the public way and/or to each other, and that the connecting spaces be at least 10 feet wide. She questioned if 10 feet is sufficient enough width to serve the intended purpose. Mr. Chave pointed out that the requirement would not limit the width to 10 feet, but it would require at least 10 feet. Board Member Stewart asked if the Green Factor Tools contained in Attachment 4 were provided by the Green Futures Lab. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Stewart asked if Attachment 4 would be incorporated into the code language. Mr. Chave said the intent is to adopt Attachment 4 by reference. Providing a reference would allow the information to be accessed via the City’s website. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that the Green Factor Tools are complicated. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that staff would provide examples and help developers through the process. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the 45-foot setback requirement for the property identified as Lot 23105 would be incorporated into the actual code language. Mr. Chave answered that it would be identified on the Westgate Protected Slopes Map. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that increasing the setback requirement for this property could help address some of the adjacent Packet Page 420 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 6 neighbor’s concerns about privacy, particularly given that the area is heavily vegetated. He questioned if changing the setback requirement would be sufficient, or if the height limit should also be reduced to 25 feet. The entire bank is fairly low and the only buffer is the bank and vegetation. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the current contract rezone that applies to Lot 23105 is attached to the parcel or the building. Mr. Chave said the parcel is bound by the contract rezone at this time, and any redevelopment would have to comply with the 45-foot setback requirement. However, the proposed zoning would supersede the contract rezone and reduce the buffer width to just 30 feet. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City frequently makes zoning changes that supersede previously approved contract rezones. Mr. Chave said it has occurred on occasion. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced her opinion that it would be a poor move to change the setback for this property to something less than what was identified in the contract rezone. The remainder of the Board agreed that the map should be altered to change the setback line from 30 feet to 45 feet regardless of the contour of the site. Vice Chair Tibbott said ECDC 22.110.070.B (Line 1 on Page 30) makes reference to opportunities for landscaped roof parks. He noted that, as currently proposed, green roofs are a type of amenity that can be used to get the fourth story height bonus. He asked if green roofs should be required in situations where development would be within close proximity to residential units. Board Member Stewart pointed out that green roofs, as identified in the Green Factor Tools, are different than roof parks. Roof parks are intended to be useable spaces that people walk on and enjoy. Green roofs are intended to perform stormwater functions and provide insulation for the rooftop and not necessarily for public access. She appreciates that roof parks have been identified as a type of amenity space; not only are they useable, but they are attractive, as well. Board Member Lovell said it is fairly likely that a three-story, mixed-use development would be of a wood frame design, which is not structurally suitable for either roof parks or green roofs. Typically, these uses require a steel or reinforced concrete design. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 16.110 AND 22.110 (ATTACHMENT 2) TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. IN THE FIGURE ILLUSTRATING HEIGHT LIMITS ON PAGE 7 (ECDC 22.110.010) INSERT DISTINCT LIMITATIONS FOR EVERY PARCEL, INCLUDING THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LIMITED TO THREE-STORY DEVELOPMENT. 2. ON THE MAP THAT WILL BE INSERTED INTO ECDC 22.110.070 (PAGE 30) TO ILLUSTRATE THE BUILT-TO LINES, ADJUST THE LINE FOR LOT 23105 (SOUTHEAST QUADRANT) TO BE 45 FEET, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT REZONE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY IN 1985. 3. THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, CHANGE THE SCALE OF TREES TO BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 15 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD AND 30 FEET FOR TREES THAT ARE LOCATED NEAR THE SIDEWALK. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-0, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 3) Mr. Chave explained that Attachment 3 illustrates the zoning changes necessary to incorporate the new WMU zoning. He emphasized that the rezone proposal only involves properties that are currently zoned commercial. No residential properties would be rezoned as part of the current proposal. Mr. Chave advised that, since the Board’s last discussion, staff learned of an anomaly in the southeast quadrant where the existing commercial zone has a triangular shape and the commercial boundaries intrude into the residential lots. Although the current zoning has been in place for more than 20 years, he felt it would be appropriate to resolve the issue now that it has been called to the City’s attention. He explained that more research into county and City records is needed to learn more Packet Page 421 of 787 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 7 about the history of why these lots are zoned the way they are. If an error was made on the zoning map, the map can be corrected when it is presented to the City Council as part of their review of the Westgate Plan and zoning. If the zoning is not an error, then a separate action, including more research and a public hearing, would be needed to rezone the property to address the problem. In that case, the City Council would likely deal with the Zoning Map Amendment using the current boundaries, and then take action at a later date to address these specific properties. Board Member Lovell requested more information about Lot 9601, which is currently zoned BC-EW. Mr. Chave explained that, as proposed, the current BC-EW zone would be replaced with the new WMU zone. The current 45-foot height limit would be replaced with a 35-foot height limit. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING REZONES (ATTACHMENT 6), THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ATTACHMENT 3) AS PRESENTED, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE AN AMENDMENT BASED ON FURTHER RESEARCH. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 8:45 TO 8:52. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS DEFINING “LOTS OF RECORD” AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING “INNOCENT PURCHASER” (FILE NUMBER AMD20140001) Mr. Lien explained that, typically, legal lots are created via the subdivision process and the property boundaries are clearly spelled out. However, some properties have been further subdivided over the years absent the subdivision process. The City cannot issue building permits for properties that were not legally created through the subdivision process. To preface his comments he referred to the following sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): ECDC 20.75.180 states that, “No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit, shall be issued for any lot, tract or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter unless the applicant for such a permit has applied to the hearing examiner and obtained a ruling that the public interest will not be adversely affected, thereby; provided, however, the prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to an innocent purchase.” ECDC 20.55.010 defines “lot,” as “A single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on a street or access easement. For purposes of this code, adjoining lots under common ownership, which were created without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county governments, shall be considered as one lot.” Mr. Lien provided an example of a subdivision that was recorded in 1915. Since the original subdivision, just one short plat has been approved in the area, but numerous parcels were created outside of the subdivision process and may not be legal lots. He noted that there are several areas throughout the City where this problem exists. As properties are redeveloped, he suspects more issues will come up and it will be important to have a clear definition for what a legal lot is. A related issue that is being considered as part of the code amendment is “innocent purchaser,” which is someone who unknowingly purchases an illegal lot. Mr. Lien referred to Attachment 1, which outlines the proposed code amendments and reviewed each of the changes as follows: In ECDC 21.55.010, the first sentence in the definition of “lot” would be changed to read, “A fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts and parcels.” Mr. Lien advised that this definition was taken from the State’s definition (58.17.02). The last two sentences of the existing definition would remain unchanged. In ECDC 21.55.015, a new definition would be added for “lot of record.” Mr. Lien said this is a new term that would take the place of “legal lot.” As currently proposed, a “lot of record” means a single tract of land meeting any one of the Packet Page 422 of 787 APPROVED JUNE 11TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 28, 2014 Vice Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Ian Duncan Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier, Chair (excused) STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Darrell Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Board Members for their service. As volunteers, they work hard for the City and their job is very complicated and rewarding for the City. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE GUIDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA: The Westgate Commercial Area consists of the Neighborhood Business (BN), Commercial Business (BC) and Commercial Business-Edmonds Way (BC-EW) Zones near the intersection of SR-104 (Edmonds Way) and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave explained that this is a public hearing on a proposed plan and form-based code that will guide future commercial and mixed use development in the Westgate Commercial Area. The proposed amendments include modifications to the text of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the Westgate Commercial area, establishment of a new Mixed Use-Westgate (MU-W) Zone, and Development Code changes to apply the new MU-W zone to the Westgate Commercial Area. The proposed amendments are intended to provide opportunities for additional development intensity within the commercial area, as well as additional protection for the surrounding slopes. Packet Page 423 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Chave displayed a map of the Westgate Commercial Area, emphasizing that no zoning changes are being proposed for properties outside of the study area. He provided a brief explanation about why the study came about: There is a fair amount of growth in the region, and Edmonds made the choice a few decades ago to not zone new areas for commercial or multi-family (RM) residential development. Instead, the City has focused future growth into existing areas that were already established for those kinds of uses. Because the City is largely built out, the idea is to focus on enhancing areas that are already set for higher-intensity uses. A change in population has occurred and will continue to occur, and it is expected to significantly change what areas look like in the future. The aging population, combined with the recent economic issues, has created some challenges related to housing choices. The City looks at the Westgate area as an opportunity for a different mixture of housing and services than has traditionally been there, and this would match the trend in the region. There is a real interest in combining commercial and residential development into small centers that build on the opportunities for enhanced transit and more walkable and vital environments. Focusing development in the already developed areas that have the services to support the intensity will result in less impetus to have additional sprawl. The Puget Sound area has experienced a tremendous amount of sprawl over the last few decades, which is not sustainable going into the future. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and its member cities have grappled with how to be smarter with future development so as not to compromise the resources and environment that make Puget Sound so attractive. Those who care about climate change and environmental issues recognize that compact development that is more reliant on transit and less reliant on automobiles and roads has potential benefits in the future. Local governments cannot do much to address climate change, but they have a lot of influence over land use and transportation issues that can reduce the environmental footprint of development over time. Mr. Chave reviewed that the Westgate planning process started in 2010, with the City enlisting the help of the University of Washington’s Green Futures Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy. Before starting their design work, the team conducted a survey of existing amenities and had a fairly extensive public process in early 2011. This effort was followed by a number of public workshops to review design alternatives, and citizens were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Throughout the public process, people indicated a desire for more public open spaces and uses that complement each other. They were particularly interested in improving walkability and circulation. A traffic study was also done in conjunction with the planning process to analyze what future development scenarios might look like. Mr. Chave referred to the draft Westgate Plan and form-based code (Attachment 1) and highlighted the following features: Rather than using strictly traditional zoning, the proposed zoning incorporates some elements of a form-based approach. Traditional zoning focuses specifically on uses allowed and the building envelope (setbacks, building height, etc), and says very little about what takes place inside the building. A form-based code focuses more on the overall design of a project and typically includes design standards to address the relationship of buildings to the streets and other public places. The proposed plan is based on the idea of creating a mixed use, walkable and compact center. It includes improved bicycle and pedestrian access and enhancing the identity of Westgate. It also discusses privatizing amenity spaces (places where people gather), promoting civic and private investment (offering incentives for developers to provide public amenity spaces), encouraging and/or requiring green and sustainable features, and improving stormwater systems that deal with runoff on site rather than discharging to the citywide system. The current standard zoning addresses height and setbacks in a one-size-fits-all fashion and does not address a development’s location in the Westgate area or its relationship to the street. The proposed plan and code is intended to address these subtleties and support the demographic trends by providing different mixes of uses than what you would typically see. For example, younger people would like to live in Edmonds and older people would like to stay in Edmonds, but the housing opportunities are limited. The idea is to provide opportunities for more diverse housing that will benefit the community as a whole. Packet Page 424 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 3 The proposed plan calls for amenity spaces (sidewalks, plazas, lawns, small parks, etc.) to be interspersed throughout the Westgate area. It also calls for development to be located closer to the street to encourage a more active street life. The plan calls out a series of streetscape standards and building types. While the specific locations vary, most of the development in Westgate will be commercial, with some opportunities for residential uses primarily above the ground floor. The plan discusses green features and offers options for incorporating low-impact development elements to improve the sustainability aspect of the project. Mr. Chave explained that the Planning Board conducted an extensive review of the initial plan presented by the University of Washington and made the following key changes: The initial plan mandated that buildings be located at the street front. While the current proposal encourages buildings to be located closer to the street, it does not mandate a rigid conformity. The initial plan focused development outward, with buildings organized around the SR-104 and 100th Avenue West intersection. The current proposal calls out a quadrant-based system that focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest). That means most of the circulation would be internal and away from the busy streets. An example of a development in Hillsboro, Oregon, was provided to further illustrate this concept. The initial plan recommended a base height of between one and four stories. A fifth story would have been allowed in certain locations. The current proposal caps the height in most places at three stories, with an opportunity to obtain four stories only where the nearby slopes are higher and where no residences are nearby. The additional height would require the developer to incorporate a certain level of green features into the project, as well. On properties where there are no adjacent slopes, heights would be limited to two stories. The initial plan called for street setbacks of 8 feet. After further discussion, the Board decided it would be appropriate to increase the street setback to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that turn pockets could be provided for traffic access if needed. The proposed plan includes a stepback requirement for development radiating from the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West to maintain openness and create a sense of place. Mr. Chave explained that, when considering appropriate building heights, the Board carefully reviewed the topography of the properties. He provided a topographic map that identifies the locations of the steep slopes in relationship to the proposed building heights. He noted that the steepest slopes are located in the northeast (40 to 50 feet) and southwest (65 to 70 feet) quadrants. In these locations, a 45-foot building (3 to 4 stories) would remain below the height of the residential properties on top of the slope. The slope in the southeast quadrant is between 30 and 35 feet, and the northwest quadrant is relatively flat. Building height in these quadrants would be limited to just two and three stories. Mr. Chave observed that the existing zoning throughout the area allows a height of up to 25 feet, and requires a 15-foot setback. The Board has discussed concern that the 15-foot setback requirement does little to protect the slopes. Because they are primarily located in the commercial zones, developers can cut significantly into the slope without getting into the 15-foot setback area. He noted that the 20 to 30-foot retaining wall that was constructed behind the Walgreens building was code compliant, but not something the City wants to allow in the future. He said staff is considering language that would further protect the slopes and existing vegetation. Mr. Chave provided a map that illustrated the various building heights allowed throughout the Westgate area. He noted that at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, building heights would be limited to just two stories at the street front. Additional height would be allowed if the upper stories are stepped back. He pointed out that development would be limited to just two stories on properties where there is very little topographic separation between the commercial and residential properties. Three and four story development would be allowed on properties that have greater slopes, with the residential development tucked above. Packet Page 425 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Chave explained that following the public hearing, the Planning Board will deliberate and discuss final changes to the draft proposal. An addition to changes brought forward by the Planning Board, staff will also propose some minor amendments for clarity. A final draft of the proposal will be brought back to the Board for review on June 11th, after which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold an additional public hearing and make a final decision on the plan and proposed zoning changes. He encouraged members of the public to sign up on the mailing list so they can receive follow up information regarding the proposal. Hank Landau, Edmonds, said he and his wife own commercial property on 100th Avenue West, just south of Bartells, as well as the residential property on top of the 70-foot slope. He said his understanding is that the current proposal would limit the height on his commercial property to 35 feet or three stories. He requested the Board consider changing the proposal to allow a height similar to what was developed on the adjacent Bartells property, which is 45 feet or four stories. He noted that this request would be consistent with the concept of allowing four-story development on properties where the slope is high and no residential development is nearby. He further noted that his property is joined on both sides by commercial uses. Mr. Landau explained that a portion of his commercial property is higher than the street grade as a result of an approximately 10-foot bench that runs through the property. He requested that the proposed language be amended to allow him to cut into the bench so that the entire property could be developed at the same elevation. He acknowledged that doing so would require a retaining wall, but it would be nothing like the significant wall located behind Walgreens. He summarized his belief that what he is requesting would be consistent with the Board’s guidance on height. A 45-foot tall building would still be 25 feet below the grade of the residential properties on top of the slope. He recognized the neighbor’s concerns about not wanting businesses to look down on their properties, but his request would not adversely impact the residential properties or development located along 100th Avenue West. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, voiced concerned about the notion of the four quadrants. As a user of three of the four quadrants, she finds it difficult to navigate through the traffic because there are so many conflicts with people going back and forth throughout the quadrants. While she acknowledged that providing a pedestrian overpass going across SR-104 would be costly and require a significant amount of planning with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), it would help to resolve issues related to safety and navigation. Other than safety concerns, she said thinks the proposed plan is wonderful. She particularly likes the fact there will be residential options for young people to move into the community. The idea of apartments rather than condominiums is also very appealing. She commented that Seattle was recently identified as the fastest growing city in the nation, and young people who cannot afford the high rents may want to live in Edmonds, instead. She suggested that a health club and other amenities would be appropriate in the Westgate area. She is not concerned about allowing four-story development in some locations, and she specifically noted that in the Queen Anne Neighborhood of Seattle, there is residential development on top of a QFC. She said she likes the idea of public amenities, especially plazas to provide places for people to meet and greet. Chuck Kalkwarf, Edmonds, said he lives directly behind the Landau’s property and is totally against increasing the height limit from 35 feet to 45 feet. He recalled the earthquake that occurred several years ago, which caused the slope to slide down the back side of his property. He said he is against allowing the slopes to be cut out and replaced with retaining walls. David Snow, Edmonds, said he has lived in his residential property adjacent to the Westgate Commercial Area for 55 years and has watched the neighborhood deteriorate because of growth. If the height limit is increased to 35 and 45 feet, any new commercial development would increase the residential property owners’ view of rooftops, including the associated mechanical equipment. He said he is opposed to any commercial development that is greater than two stories, and he is also opposed to allowing any more of the hillside to be cut away. He said he doesn’t understand why the City is proposing 35 and 45-foot height limits, when the height limit in most of the City is 25 feet. Marsha Fischer, Edmonds, referred to the beautiful pictures provided by staff to illustrate a development with storefronts and gathering places in the back. However, the Board should keep in mind that the quadrants at Westgate are small and there would not likely be enough space for significant gathering places or a small farmer’s market. She said she is against any height increase, as the area is already congested. She also doesn’t believe that pedestrians will walk through the quadrants, particularly if they have to cross the street. Packet Page 426 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 5 Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, said she is opposed to incentive zoning and form-based planning. She is opposed to their purpose (raising height limits in commercial Edmonds to make money) and the method for achieving that purpose (authorizing institutional bribery and cronyism). She suggested that if the Planning Board thinks open space, amenity space, green buildings, alternative transportation, and affordable housing are desirable and a benefit to the public, they can recommend that the City Council use its police power to mandate these requirements. Edmonds doesn’t have to bribe developers to provide these amenities and then call it an incentive as a cover. Ms. Shippen expressed her belief that form-based planning substitutes negotiation for the certainty of traditional zoning. The negotiators will be a developer and the Edmonds Mayor, who will work out a deal (development plan) vaguely guided by the pictures, sketches and piles of verbiage that comprises a form-based code. Form-based codes do not use numbers if it can be avoided. Instead it is about wheeling and dealing over a set of official brownie points, making it impossible for a resident of Edmonds to follow. She noted that the Compass Project is a good example of what can happen. The mayor and the developer wrote the code and then applied it. The developer got height increases and the public got two big eyesores. That’s called cronyism. She emphasized that she does not want any Edmonds Mayor negotiating land-use decisions on her behalf. Many are Chamber of Commerce retreads who are unduly sympathetic to the problems of business and believe the questionable political theory that anything that benefits business will trickle down to the residents. She said she disagrees with that point of view and does not want a mayor who is any ex-realtor negotiating a flexible development agreement with a builder because she will likely lose. Ms. Shippen summarized that the Board is being asked to approve measures that are devious, unnecessary and invite abuse. Edmonds does not need an official policy of bribery and cronyism to get growth. Westgate is growing well under the existing code, and the only change needed is removal of the footnotes beneath the height allowance chart that grant five-foot height increases for this and that. The code would then be simple, clear and protect the interests of the residents, as a good ordinance should. She recalled that a Westgate resident who protested the original zoning request was told that it was necessary in order for the project to be financially practical. So for the past seven years, the Planning Board has been inundated with piles of mindless planning fluff, the purpose of which is to install a system that will insure more bucks for developers. She suggested the Board learn from the mistakes of the Compass Project and ask what parts of the goals and policies for Westgate would not be implemented if the height limits remained at 25 and 35 feet. Jim Dasher, Edmonds, questioned why lot 23315 has been designated for two-story development when the adjacent properties would be allowed three stories. He expressed concern that his residential property would look down on the tops of the commercial buildings. He recalled that numerous trees were removed as part of previous development, eliminating much of the greenbelt that separated the residential and commercial properties. He voiced concern about the aesthetic impacts three-story development would have on the residential properties above. He has lived in his home since 1978 and doesn’t want the neighborhood messed up. He wants to keep the small, comfortable area and not commercialize it. Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she lives north of QFC and likes the idea of having apartments available for young families. However, she would like to maintain the existing code rather than allow everything to be negotiated. Form-based codes leave too much up for grabs. While she supports green infrastructure, she requested that traffic and safety issues must be addressed. She observed that there are numerous access points for the commercial properties, making it difficult to travel along SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. There have been numerous traffic accidents in the area and a few fatalities because people are not as careful as they need to be. She is concerned that traffic will not be well managed in terms of safety, and greater height limits would only make the problem worse. She understands that working out a solution with WSDOT would be tricky, but critical to making sure they do not have any other traffic incidents. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to Ms. Shippen’s earlier comment about the negotiating power of the City’s mayor. He clarified that the Mayor cannot negotiate development agreements with developers. If development agreements are allowed, the negotiation would be between the City Attorney and seven City Council Members. For those who have followed the City Council, it is clear that they do not let the Mayor get away with very much. Dennis Fee, Edmonds, said he has lived on 100th Avenue West for 26 years. When he purchased his property, it was part of unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). It was later annexed into the City of Edmonds. Since becoming a citizen of Edmonds, his taxes have increased with no additional benefits. For example, although the City talks about wanting to serve the aging population, there are no crosswalks on 100th Avenue West in the nearly one-mile stretch of residential community Packet Page 427 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 6 between SR-104 and 200th Avenue West. He said he does not support the concept of increasing population in the Westgate Commercial Area. Eric Goodman, AICP, Edmonds, said he lives on 101st Place Southwest. He said he likes a lot of elements contained in the plan, particularly making Westgate more of a place, providing more activities and amenities, and accommodating the housing needs of a diverse population. He expressed concern that limiting the height to two to four stories would discourage redevelopment. Greater heights are needed in order for projects to pencil out. For those who have traffic concerns, he noted that taller buildings would actually slow traffic down. He agreed that more crosswalks are needed. He referred to recent developments in Vancouver, B.C., where green roofs have been used to reduce visual impacts from properties located uphill. He reminded the Board that the community is about to lose some of its bus service. More riders are needed to increase transit opportunities, and this requires that there be places for people to live, work and shop. He concluded that the proposed plan could make Westgate much better. Dave Snow, Edmonds, encouraged the Planning Board to carefully consider the written comments he previously submitted via email to voice his opposition to the proposed plan. Jim Dasher, Edmonds, said he received a letter from the City several weeks ago informing him of the proposed plan and advising that additional information was available on the City’s website. He tried unsuccessfully to access the information, and later learned from City staff that it had not been posted yet. He suggested that the information should have been posted on line before the letter was sent out. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M. Board Member Duncan asked Mr. Chave to clarify the City’s jurisdiction related to SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave answered that SR-104 is under WSDOT’s control, but 100th Avenue West is controlled by the City. The University of Washington’s initial plan included cross sections to illustrate potential changes on 100th Avenue West. While the plan makes reference to the changes, they were not actually included. The Engineering and Public Works Departments agreed that there might be some opportunity to improve crossing, particularly near the cemetery; but they felt a more detailed study would be needed before including the concept in the plan. They pointed out that most of the problems are associated with access points that were historically placed in less than ideal locations, and changes would likely occur as properties are redeveloped and access points are adjusted. Board Member Duncan summarized that the City does not have the ability to make changes on SR-104. Mr. Chave agreed that the City cannot add crosswalks on SR-104 without approval from the WSDOT, and he would be very surprised if they allowed additional crossings on the highway. He added that while an elevated crossing would be possible, it would be extremely costly. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that the Planning Board, City Council, staff and community has spent the past four years reviewing plans, drawings, diagrams, maps, topography, traffic studies, building height, etc., yet members of the public still claim that they were not well informed. He reviewed that the effort started with an extensive public process guided by a team of students from the University of Washington. Their work culminated in a study titled, “Revisioning Westgate, which has been available for public review for the past three years. The current proposal is a watered-down version, which includes major changes and adjustments as a result of Planning Board’s discussion and input from the public. He said he supports the proposed plan, as currently written, with the expectation that it will come before the Board once again for final review of minor tweaks before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. He specifically made the following comments in support of the plan: Currently, the Westgate Commercial Area is zoned BN and BC. BN zoning already allows single-family residential development, and BC zoning allows multi-family residential in addition to commercial. The new code guidelines will enable mixed-use development with commercial/retail on the ground floor and multi-family residential on the upper floors in a variety of building formats. The proposed form-based code is intended to achieve some, if not all, of the goals spelled out within the merger of both the existing and studied guidelines as outlined. The plan will increase housing options for everyone without clamping down on new housing. Packet Page 428 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 7 More housing contributes to transit-oriented development with locally or immediately available public transportation as well as retail services walkable from your dwelling. This is good for new residents, as well as existing residents within the neighborhood. The plan will accommodate increased density within the City in support for the Growth Management Act and Vision 2040. The plan will respond more actively to market demands for lower cost, smaller residential units to support population growth, as well as younger citizens and families. In summary, Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that the proposed revised development standards for Westgate will result in increased flexibility to create more market-rate and consumer-driven options for housing, as well as retail uses. This will be good for retail business, good for growth, and good for renters and homebuyers of all income levels. He suggested that those objecting to potential growth due to perceived increased congestion are off base. Such growth represents vibrant activity due to shoppers, visitors and residents; and that’s a good thing for Edmonds. Board Member Ellis observed that it is more difficult to address issues when comments come in late in the planning process. However, he is grateful for the comments received. He reminded those in the audience that the final decision will be made by the City Council, and there will be another opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns at the public hearing before the City Council. He expressed his belief that the plan has gone through an extensive public process and addresses most of the concerns raised during the hearing. There are a number of people who just don’t want Edmonds to change. While he understands this position, it is important to keep in mind that “no change” is not really an option given the City’s responsibility to the Growth Management Act. The Board and City Council’s responsibility is to manage the redevelopment as best they can to ensure it is done in a manner that is good for the City. The comments provided during the hearing will be helpful when putting together the final plan. Board Member Stewart thanked the citizens who participated in the hearing, noting that their comments are very important to the Board. She agreed with Board Member Ellis that it is unfortunate that their comments have come late in the process, but the Board is committed to considering each one carefully. The plan has been in process for the past four years, and there have been numerous opportunities for public involvement. The Board has massaged the plan many times to make it more palatable to the public and ultimately the City Council, who will make the final decision. She asked the citizens to respect the work that has been done to date and encouraged them to review the plan in detail and then share their comments with the City Council. Board Member Stewart recalled that many citizens expressed concern that the residential properties would look down on the commercial buildings. She explained that the Board carefully considered the topography of the area to make sure they were not allowing buildings that were too tall. She reminded those present that sustainable building trends include green roofs. In Seattle, in particular, there are beautiful green roofs with trees gardens and plazas. Buildings located uphill look down on these green spaces. Another new trend is to place HVAC systems and other rooftop equipment in obscured areas or inside buildings. She summarized that there are numerous options to make buildings more attractive. She observed that the proposed form-based code is a hybrid approach that blends with traditional zoning. The plan looks at the relationship of buildings to each other and the street, and the goal is to create a place where people want to live, work, play and spend time gathering. It will take decades for this to happen, but she is optimistic the plan will result in a much better place than it is now. Board Member Robles observed that from the information provided, it appears that form-based zoning will require a lot more public interaction. In fact, the Board was forewarned in 2012 by other communities that extensive outreach would be necessary. The City has demonstrated the importance of public involvement by initiating a traffic analysis to address concerns raised by citizens regarding traffic impacts. He said he is confident that when the City Council receives the Board’s recommendation, it will be accompanied by a well-founded packet of information to help them make their decision. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed with Board Member Stewart that it will take decades for the plan to be fully implemented, and significant change will not happen overnight because there are many property owners who have numerous choices. She pointed out that the proposed plan would not mandate three and four-story development. They could be developed with one and two-story structures, if that is the desire of the property owners. She said her understanding is that Packet Page 429 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 8 walking between the four quadrants is not a feature of the plan. Instead, the plan calls for people being able to park in one quadrant and walk to the various businesses within that one quadrant. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that Westgate is a dilemma. The highway runs through a neighborhood, yet the City does not have the ability to change the roadway configuration. However, some of the changes proposed in the plan will help make the area more neighborly and walkable, which is a stated desire of Edmonds citizens. There is a national goal of getting all American’s to walk more, and Edmonds can be a leader by encouraging development that is pedestrian friendly. She said she often sees people walking along 100th Avenue West and SR-104. People are drawn to the businesses located at Westgate, and the plan allows the potential for it to become more value to people living nearby. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to share how the zoning that existed at the time the Compass Development was built is different than what is proposed in the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Compass Development is located further east on SR-104 in the BC-EW zone. He pointed out that the parcels at the east end of the Westgate Commercial Area are also currently zoned BC-EW, which allows building heights up to 45 feet. Under the proposed plan, this BC-EW zoning would be replaced with the MU-W zoning, and the height limit would be reduced from 45 to 35 feet. In addition, the height limit for the properties currently zoned BC (on the north side of the Westgate Commercial Area) would be changed from 30 feet to 25 feet. However, most of the commercial area is currently zoned BN, which has a 25-foot height limit. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that BN zoning was never appropriate for the Westgate Commercial Area, as it is more applicable to smaller neighborhood centers like Perrinville and Five Corners. Westgate has always been recognized as having “two personalities.” It serves the neighborhood area, but it also draws people from a larger area via the highway. He referred to the traffic analysis, which was a detailed study predicated on the initial plan in which buildings were being allowed up to five stories. The analysis concluded that Level of Service (LOS), even under the five-story development scenario, would not significantly because the amount of traffic generated by redevelopment would pale in comparison to the traffic already in the area. The current plan caps height at two to four stories, so it is anticipated that traffic impacts would be even less, since the overall level of development would be reduced by about 20%. Mr. Chave explained that the transportation analysis identified situations that needed to be fixed, but the only way these changes will happen is project-by-project as redevelopment occurs. Vice Chair Tibbott summarized that, as redevelopment occurs, some of the historic problems with ill-placed access points could be addressed. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to explain how the proposed plan would protect the slope that is located between the commercial and residential developments. Mr. Chave pointed out that most of the sloped areas are located within the commercial zones, and the 15-foot setback requirement in the current code offers very little protection. This is particularly true if a developer has the money, inclination and desire to maximize the property’s development potential. Rather than using a uniform setback to protect the slope, staff is recommending that the setback be tied to the contours of the slope. At the next meeting, staff will bring back more information about how this concept could be incorporated into the plan. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if staff is suggesting that the final Westgate Plan not allow retaining walls such as the one developed behind Walgreens. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Tibbott recalled that the Westgate Plan is intended to preserve the trees and vegetation along the slopes to provide privacy for home owners. Mr. Chave agreed that is the impetus in the plan, but there needs to be more specific guidance. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to explain what is different about the properties along 100th Avenue West in the southeast quadrant, including the Landau property, that warrants a 35 rather than 45-foot height limit. Mr. Chave pointed out that although there is a slope on these properties, it is not as significant as the slope that exists in areas where four-story development would be allowed. The 10-foot bench that runs through the properties also makes them unique. While it would be appropriate to allow excavation of the bench area to create a building site that is at street level, it would not be appropriate to allow significant excavation into the hillside. Again, he suggested the need to identify contour lines to protect the slope beyond the 15-foot setback requirement. Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to summarize the current level of development in the Westgate Commercial area, particularly in terms of vacant space and properties that are nearing the end of their reasonable life. Mr. Chave said he does not have information about vacancies, but there are properties within the Westgate Commercial Area that are ripe for redevelopment Packet Page 430 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 9 with the right combination of zoning and property ownership. He noted that Bartells has expressed interest in relocating their building closer to the street so it is more visible. He commented that he does not anticipate that the proposed plan would drive successful businesses away. Instead, it is anticipated that property owners would invest more money in the sites and in the community. Vice Chair Tibbott said one reason he supports the plan is that it would create opportunities for businesses and owners to improve properties, within some creative guidelines, so they are attractive and provide a benefit to the community. However, he suggested the Board consider extending the 25-foot (two story) height limit for commercial properties on 100th Avenue West all the way to 232nd Street to protect the residential properties located on 99th Avenue West. Vice Chair Tibbott said he appreciates the comments related to green roofs. He said he also wants to make sure that any future commercial development is sensitive to the residential properties located on top of the hillsides. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to earlier comments about how difficult it was to obtain information regarding the Westgate Plan from the City’s website. He suggested that the Planning Board’s page on the City’s website is the best place to look for information regarding items that are scheduled on the Board’s agenda for discussion and/or public hearing. For example, the Planning Board’s meeting agenda provided links to all the documents that have been provided to date regarding the Westgate Plan. Board Member Lovell reported that, at their recent meeting, the EDC discussed that many citizens are concerned that the bowling alley was demolished to accommodate the new Walgreen’s store. It was suggested that perhaps the Westgate Plan could include some incentive to encourage the re-establishment of the bowling alley or the development of some other type of family-oriented entertainment facility. He noted that, as currently proposed, amusement establishments and local public facilities would be allowed as primary uses, but a conditional use permit would be required. Mr. Chave suggested that if the Board would like to allow family-oriented entertainment or recreational establishments as outright permitted uses, the best approach would be to change the use table rather than incorporating the idea into the incentive program. Board Member Robles noted that a number of studies related to bowling alleys have connected the decline in American communities to the decline in bowling leagues. He suggested that the Westgate Plan affords the City a powerful tool to strategically insert some of the things they want Edmonds to represent. Board Member Lovell cautioned that the properties are privately owned and any redevelopment will likely be market driven. He questioned how bowling alleys would fit into today’s economy. Board Member Duncan reminded the Board that the proposed plan encourages amenities such as gathering places, cafes, fountains, plazas, etc. These gathering places can help create a center to build upon. He said he supports the plan and believes it will be great for the area. As the area is currently development, there is not a lot to preserve. Board Member Stewart added that it would be great if the plan encouraged child-friendly amenity space, as well. Board Member Robles pointed out that electric cars and other technology is ever changing. He suggested that instead of limiting the plan to the existing trends in urban development, the plan should look to future trends. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than using circles of different colors, the plan should use different shapes to identify the properties that are eligible for the fourth story height bonus and those that are limited to just two stories in height. Mr. Chave noted that the latest version of the map provides numbers within the circles to identify the maximum stories allowed. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if maintenance agreements and performance bonds would still be required for all landscaping. Mr. Chave answered that maintenance agreements and performance bonds are standard code provisions. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Lines 13 and 14 on Page 33 of the plan and suggested that the examples of high efficiency irrigation applications should be eliminated. She cautioned that calling out specific examples of current technology can cause the plan to become outdated as technology changes. She suggested the sentence be changed to read, “Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation applications will be used.” The remainder of the Board agreed. Packet Page 431 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 10 Board Member Rubenkonig also suggested that Lines 17 on Page 33 be changed by eliminating , “in accordance with City requirements then in place.” She explained that one expects that after initial growth, when the plants have matured and the roots are more secure, irrigation will be limited. The last part of the sentence is awkward and appears to mandate something that is not really required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the proposed plan would require developers to plant trees consistent with the City’s approved Street Tree List. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Green Factor Program would actually require more extensive plantings than what would typically be required. Board Member Rubenkonig referenced the Height Bonus Score Sheet and suggested that the term “car share parking” be changed to “shared parking,” which is a term used consistently throughout the City’s code. Mr. Chave pointed out that “car share parking” is entirely different than “shared parking,” and refers to parking space for cars that are shared amongst numerous people. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed concern that the term “charging facilities for electric cars” is too limiting, since there are other transportation types that need to be charged. Board Member Duncan cautioned against rating charging facilities for other types of transportation the same as charging stations for cars. He pointed out that cars carry more than one person. He also pointed out that if developers could choose between providing electric charging stations for cars or for other types of vehicles, they would likely choose other types of vehicles since less space would be required. That would not be consistent with the intent of the proposed credit. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that in the Height Bonus Score Sheet, a credit would be allowed for indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities. Elsewhere in the code, “bike storage facilities” are referred to as “non-motorized transportation facilities.” Board Member Stewart said the intent is that developers would provide safe and secure places for people to store bicycles. Again, Board Member Duncan cautioned that, if given a choice between skateboard or bicycle storage, developers would like choose skateboard storage because it would take significantly less space. Board Member Ellis added that the idea of providing indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities is becoming popular in Seattle. Many buildings are being retrofitted with these types of amenities to serve people who commute to work via bicycle. Board Member Stewart recalled the Board’s previous discussion that more visual information should be provided when the plan is presented to the City Council. She expressed her belief that 3-D drawings would be helpful. Flat topographical maps are not sufficient to address the public’s fears about how the area could be developed if the plan is approved. Board Member Ellis recalled the Board’s concern about providing diagrams of potential development since many people will assume that is exactly what future development will look like. Mr. Chave advised that staff would update the draft Westgate Plan and form-based code as per the Board’s discussion and bring it back for the Board’s final review on June 11th. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board discussed potential dates for a retreat and agreed upon a tentative date of July 9th. They further agreed that the retreat discussion would include a staff presentation on the process and timeline for the upcoming Development Code Update and a discussion about the Planning Board’s use of technology. They agreed to forward other potential agenda topics to the Chair and/or Vice Chair. DIRECTOR/PLANNING MANAGER REPORT Ms. Hope provided a brief summary of her written Director’s Report, specifically noting: The work group continues to meet with a facilitator to identify a process and timeline for implementing the Strategic Action Plan. The first quarterly report will be presented to the City Council on June 14th. The Planning Board will discuss the prioritization and approach for moving forward with the Development Code Update at their upcoming retreat. The Board could also discuss the Comprehensive Plan update at their next retreat, or it could be scheduled for discussion at a separate meeting. Packet Page 432 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 2 August 5, 1998. At a public hearing on January 21, 2014, the Edmonds City Council unanimously approved the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Reidy recalled that, several years earlier, after a public hearing on August 28, 2008, the City Council unanimously approved the Planning Board’s recommended language related to accessory buildings that existed on or before January 1, 1981. He referred to two emails with attachments that he sent to the Board. One attachment, dated November 17, 2009, shows that during its code enforcement efforts against his accessory building, the City was fully aware that if his accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981, the related setbacks would be grandfathered. The second attachment contained an audio clip during which the former City Attorney tells the former Hearing Examiner that “grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not illegal uses.” However, the City Attorney failed to tell the Hearing Examiner the complete law related to accessory buildings that existed on or before January 1, 1981. The Hearing Examiner later ruled in her findings that “the testimony addressing the duration of the existing accessory structure was not relevant and was not relied on.” Mr. Reidy stated that “the duration of his existing accessory structure was extremely relevant and had to be relied upon under the City’s own laws.” Mr. Reid said it is important for the Planning Board to understand that their advisory work can be undermined by the City as evidenced by the City’s code enforcement against his accessory building that was built in the 1960’s. He pointed out that the City’s code is clear. Edmonds City Code 2.01 states that “the Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the City.” He emphasized that enforcement of the laws is neither his nor the Planning Board’s responsibility. He commented that when a mayor is fully aware that the City laws and ordinances have not been faithfully enforced and still refuses to correct the City’s conduct, innocent citizens of Edmonds can be harmed and their trust can be greatly impaired. He encouraged the Board to recommend that the City Council task them to address Chapter 2.01 of the Code because of its connection with faithful enforcement of the City’s ordinances. He expressed his belief that Chapter 2.01 must be promptly updated and improved upon. Such would lead to improved performance by the City’s mayors and more accountability. He noted that the majority of Chapter 2.01 was adopted in 1983. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave recalled that this is a follow up discussion to the public hearing that was held on March 12, 2014. He referred to Attachment 1, which contains an updated draft of the plan and code as per the Board’s direction following the public hearing. He reviewed the changes as follows: 1. ECDC 16.110.010 was updated to provide for 2, 3 and 4-story building limits, and the map was moved from the end of the document to this section so that it accompanies the height discussion. 2. ECDC 16.110.010(C) was amended by changing the word “preferred” to “shall” to be stronger about building location. The intent is for buildings to be placed closer to the periphery of the properties, but the understanding is that the last sentence of the paragraph still provides discretion to vary building siting when there is a good reason. 3. Most of the height/story references were removed from the building type summaries beginning on Page 11. Because heights are specified in 16.110.010, it seems that talking about “3-story buildings” throughout the building type discussion will only confuse the issue, particularly if 2 and 4-story buildings are also specified. The language was also modified in a few locations where the descriptions did not seem to make sense given the potential for different height limits. 4. The Height Bonus Score sheet was adjusted to reflect the Planning Board’s discussion following the hearing. Mr. Chave noted that, in addition to the updated draft Westgate Plan and Code (Attachment 1), the Staff Report also included Planning Board minutes from the March 12th Public Hearing (Attachment 2), the Transportation Analysis (Attachment 3) and a reduced development scenario (Attachment 4). He explained that the Transportation Analysis was based on 4 and 5-story buildings, and the current plan talks about 2 to 4-story buildings. At the request of the Board, staff prepared an estimate of how lowering the building height might affect the ultimate build-out for Westgate (see Attachment 4). Assuming a broad reduction in heights from 4 to 5 stories to 3 to 4 stories, it is estimated there will be 18% to 20% less development than what was anticipated in the original draft. This will equate to 18% to 20% less traffic, as well. Because the Transportation Packet Page 433 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 3 Analysis indicated that Level of Service (LOS) would not be impacted by the higher level of development, it is safe to say that LOS would not be impacted by the lower level of development proposed in the current plan, either. Board Member Lovell said it appears from the Transportation Analysis that, even with future build-out of Westgate, acceleration and deceleration lanes will not be needed at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave explained that there is already a tremendous amount of background traffic on the corridor, and development at Westgate only contributes a small fraction of the overall traffic. It is anticipated that additional development will not contribute more to what is already occurring. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to Item 6 of the Transportation Analysis (Page 11), which talks about reducing vehicle capacity on 100th Avenue West, causing LOS to go from Level D to Level F. Mr. Chave recalled that the University of Washington Team recommended reducing the number of lanes on 100th Avenue West. However, the City’s Traffic Engineer indicated that a more thorough study would be needed to proceed with this concept. Because the City does not have funding to move forward with a detailed study, the concept was removed from the plan. However, it can still be considered at some point in the future. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how eliminating the concept would impact bicycle and pedestrian access. Mr. Chave pointed out that closer to the intersection, there is not enough space for additional bicycle lanes without making substantial changes to the entire configuration. However, there may be opportunities for bicycle lanes further north as you approach the cemetery. He noted that bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the four quadrants would be strong, but he cautioned against adopting a formal configuration for SR 104 and 100th Avenue West until a more detailed study has been done. Board Member Stewart pointed out that opportunities for internal circulation in the quadrants would offer bicyclists safer opportunities to get around. While she does not want to discourage the use of LOS as a measure and standard at this time, Board Member Stewart suggested that as communities become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly, updated measurement methods will not only look at the flow of vehicles, but the movement of pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that they could revisit potential changes to 100th Avenue West and SR-104 as part of their upcoming review of the City’s Transportation Master Plan. He also reminded the Board that the City recently adopted a Complete Streets Ordinance, which gets as bicycle and pedestrian access, as well. Board Member Lovell referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet on Page 34 and 35 and pointed out that obtaining LEED Platinum or Passive Housing Standard is very difficult. He questioned if it is realistic to expect that developers will utilize these difficult to achieve standards, and if they will result in odd-building designs. Board Member Stewart commented that the younger generation will not likely see LEED Platinum buildings as odd. They will see them as progressive and having all of the sustainable benefits they are looking for. Builders who construct these types of buildings want them to be something other communities look to for examples of sustainable development. While the Edmonds community has been slow to accept this concept, it is important to at least offer the opportunity to developers. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the Board is interested in recommending a fundamental level of green development for all development in the Westgate area. Mr. Chave said that, as per the proposed plan, all development in the Westgate area would be required to meet at least Built Green or basic LEED certification. All additional points would be offered as incentives for additional building height. Board Member Robles commented that most developers are prepared to at least meet basic LEED certification. Board Member Duncan added that Seattle’s “Green Factor” program is more customized for the area, and the City may want to lean that direction in the future. Board Member Stewart pointed out that “Salmon Safe” is another green building program that has been used for projects in the community. She suggested that the language be amended to allow the City to consider other green building programs, as long as they require third-party verification. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the terms “amenity space” and “open space” are used throughout the draft plan. He asked staff to describe the differences between the two terms. Mr. Chave said there is some discussion in the plan about open spaces and amenity spaces. Amenity spaces are areas that are more actively used and open spaces are less actively used. He agreed to review the two terms again and perhaps recommend changes to make their meaning clearer. Packet Page 434 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 4 Board Member Ellis noted that the heading in Table 16.110-1 should be changed from MWU to WMU. He asked if marijuana related uses should be added to the list of permitted uses. Mr. Chave answered that marijuana uses are addressed in an entirely separate section of the code. Board Member Ellis pointed out that each description of the various buildings types (Section 16.110.010.D) requires that at least one large tree be provided or an existing tree be maintained in each rear yard for shade and privacy. He questioned whether this requirement would be appropriate for all building types or if there is another way to address the intent. Mr. Chave agreed that a statement of intent would be a better approach. Board Member Ellis asked if the term “woonerf,” which is used in Section 16.110.050.B, is a commonly used term. Mr. Chave said it refers to a specific type of street design, but he is not sure the term is useful in the proposed plan. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the term is not used elsewhere in the code. Board Member Ellis expressed concern that Step 3 in Section 16.110.070.B would require a landscape professional to certify under both financial and perjury penalty that the Landscape Improvement Checklist meets or exceeds the minimum Green Factor Score or other requirements for the property. Mr. Chave said this language likely came from Seattle’s code, and he agreed that certification should be sufficient, without adding financial and perjury penalties. Board Member Ellis referred to Section 16.110.070.C, which allow new development to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays or other uses provided that pedestrian movement is accommodated. He expressed concern that using the word “accommodated” does not really establish a clear standard. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than the word “accommodated” they could say “consistent with City code.” There are code sections that are very specific as to what is allowed in sidewalks, etc. Board Member Ellis said he would rather reference other sections of the code than carve out a different standard for Westgate. Board Member Lovell observed that building height seemed to be a significant concern at the last public hearing. He reminded the Board that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) feels very strongly that public support for the plan at the next public hearing would be greatly enhanced by providing more graphic representations of what could be developed at Westgate. He recalled that many people expressed concern that taller buildings at Westgate would look into their private backyards. He said he contacted an associate who showed him how Google Earth could be used to enhance a graphic by adding translucent layers at both 35 and 45 foot heights. This would help the public understand how the proposed height limits would relate to the existing buildings and surrounding elevations. Board Member Duncan cautioned against committing to a concept and presenting it early in the process without thinking about the building form and style. People get terrified when you show mass without breaking it down properly. Board Member Lovell agreed and clarified that he was not proposing to illustrate buildings, but just a translucent layer to illustrate how high 35 and 45 feet would be. Mr. Chave agreed to work with the City’s GIS Specialist to create an illustration as per Board Member Lovell’s suggestion. Board Member Duncan said it could be as simple as a contour map. Board Member Stewart recalled that, at the previous hearing, adjacent residential neighbors were concerned about how they would be impacted by development in the northeast and southwest quadrants. She reminded the Board that Chair Cloutier addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners in the northeast quadrant by pointing that that the current code allows for development at a greater height than what is being proposed in the draft plan. Mr. Chave agreed and added that the slope in the southwest quadrant is higher than any of the proposed buildings. Board Member Stewart suggested that staff make these two facts clear prior to opening the next public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the internal roadways within the four quadrants would be privately owned. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if developers would be required to provide charging stations as part of a project. Mr. Chave referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet and noted that a developer would receive 1 credit for providing an electric car charging station. Board Member Tibbott asked if there are any areas in King or Snohomish County that have been developed similar to what is proposed in the Westgate Plan. He specifically asked how compatible local and regional uses would be in this area. The plan seems to anticipate a neighborhood center with a local flavor and pedestrian activity on a roadway that serves regional Packet Page 435 of 787 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 436 of 787 APPROVED APRIL 23RD CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 12, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Philip Lovell Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ellis (excused) Ian Duncan (excused) Kevin Clarke (excused) Madeline White (Student Representative) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested that, for the benefit of the audience, each Board Member should provide a short explanation of what form-based code means to them. He noted that most people do not have a clear understanding of this different type of zoning approach and how it will change things. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE GUIDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA. THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA CONSISTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN), COMMERCIAL BUSINESS (BC) AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESS-EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW) ZONES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SR- 104 (EDMONDS WAY) AND 100TH AVENUE WEST. Mr. Chave emphasized that the area included in the proposed plan and zoning only includes the properties in the Westgate area that are commercially zoned. No changes have been proposed for the surrounding residentially-zoned properties. He explained that the planning process was initiated by the City, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington’s Green Future’s Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy. Their beginning research focused on Packet Page 437 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 2 the idea of complete, compact and connected development. He reviewed that the first public meetings (listening sessions) took place in January 2011 where the following concerns were voiced: How much and how fast would change occur. He said it is important to understand that the proposed document is a plan and not a development proposal. It is up to the property owners to decide whether change will occur and when, but the plan will guide the type of development that is possible. Traffic. A traffic study was done, which indicated that a large share of the traffic on the corridor is related to the ferry, and the changes discussed at Westgate would not significantly contribute to the traffic congestion or deteriorate the roadways beyond the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard. Types of uses. Concern was expressed that the plan would push out the existing grocery and drug stores and other uses the community enjoys. He explained that that, as is common with this type of plan, new development will make a place for successful existing stores to fit in. Oftentimes, development comes in the form of adding additional density to an existing development, and he expects that will be the case at Westgate. He noted that the Bartells property recently changed ownership, and the new owners have expressed an interest in reconfiguring the site by relocating the drug store closer to the street to improve visibility. While the proposed plan provides flexibility for redevelopment, it would not require that the existing uses to go away. How the plan will guide future development. It must be understood that the plan cannot guarantee the exact configuration of uses, but it can give a sense of what the outcome should be. Throughout the process, it was pointed out that change will happen regardless of whether the plan is adopted or not. Jurisdictions have fairly limited control over the types of changes that occur. By enforcing good design, the City can ensure that any development that does occur will improve the area. Mr. Chave advised that the City held a design workshop on March 12, 2011, where people from the neighborhood were invited to look in detail at what kinds of design would be desirable in the area and how to get more green infrastructure and open space. From the comments received at the public workshop, the design team developed a series of alternatives or ideas, which were later translated into planning documents that incorporated a form-based code approach. He explained that form- based codes have a different emphasis than traditional zoning, which regulates height, bulk, and setbacks, and emphasizes the separation of uses. Form-based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private spaces as a critical component of the overall development scheme, and it that encourages connections between buildings, streets and open spaces. Mr. Chave advised that the plan currently being considered by the Planning Board has been changed in some significant ways from the initial plan created by students from the University of Washington and representatives from the Cascade Land Conservancy. However, many of the original concepts remain a part of the plan. He referred the Board to the initial plan, which was based on the following goals: Creating a mixed-use walkable, compact commercial center and improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. At this time, it is not easy to walk from one commercial location to another, and this encourages people to drive. The idea is to have centralized parking and arrange buildings, walkways and landscaping in such a way that people feel comfortable walking from one store to another. Enhancing the identity and visibility of Westgate and prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. The plan calls for providing pleasant places for people to gather and encourages developers to provide small plazas, fountains, pocket parks, etc. as part of any project. Promoting civic and private investments that contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhood and community at large. Currently, there are problems associated with the access points on 100th Avenue West and there is no safe way to cross the street, except at the intersection. There may be some opportunity for the City to invest money to addresses these issues in the future. Packet Page 438 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 3 Emphasizing green building construction, stormwater infiltration and low-impact site design. The intent is that the plan should encourage, and in some cases insist, on green building construction to reduce energy use and create a more pleasant environment both inside and out. In addition, the plan calls for using stormwater management techniques that are part of the landscaping. Regulating building placement and form. The intent is to establish a flexible regulating system to encourage development and provide amenities, and the initial plan called for pushing the buildings closer to the street to create more walkable areas. The “built-too” lines identified in the plan focus on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, where there is potential for an internal connection that would allow traffic to meander throughout the site without having to go onto the highway. Landscape standards could be used to ensure that traffic on the internal connection moves slowly to provide pedestrian safety. The buildings could be located close to the internal connection, with amenities and walkways to allow pedestrians closer access to the buildings. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. The plan allows for a mixture of uses, including opportunities for additional housing. The Economic Development Commission pointed out that demographics in Edmonds are changing; the population is aging and there is a need to create more opportunities for different housing choices. In addition, there is a need for more housing opportunities for young workers. The plan envisions a community where people can walk to the services they need, which is consistent with the nationwide movement of people being drawn to walkable, urban areas. The idea is to provide different housing opportunities at Westgate. Mr. Chave said the initial plan regulates: Amenity spaces. In the plan’s terminology, amenity space includes a variety of options, but basically refers to green spaces integrated into the development. This could take the form of walkways, lawns, pocket parks, etc. It is also important to have green spaces in parking lots as part of the landscaping. Stormwater management could be addressed as part of the landscaping, as well. Amenities are important to the overall development, but the current zoning code does not really talk about them at all. Required building lines. The required “built-to” lines were set at 8 feet from the SR-104 right-of-way, 5 feet from the 100th Avenue West right-of-way, and 3 feet from the edge of the internal road. Street types. The initial plan includes specific streetscape standards for SR-104, 100th Avenue West, and the internal roadway. Building types. The initial plan called for buildings up to 3 stories in height, with an additional 1 to 2 stories permitted for development that meets the bonus criteria, including consideration for topography. The plan identified a number of different building types (both commercial and residential) that could go in and around the Westgate area. Rather than specifying where each type must go, the plan allows a variety of locations for each of the building types. For each building type, the plan provides a discussion about what the design of the building should be, the types of open space that should be integrated into the design, and how the development should be laid out. Building frontage types. The plan emphasizes the connection between the building and public way or street front. It talks about the kinds of street furniture, public spaces, etc. that would make the area more inviting and encourage pedestrian activity. Sustainable and green features. The plan calls for the implementation of a Green Feature Program similar to the Green Factor Program implemented by the City of Seattle for all commercial and multi-family zones. The program provides a variety of green and sustainable building options and requires a developer to obtain a certain number of points by incorporating the options into a project. Using this approach, no development would look the same, and the end result would look different than a standard building with no green elements. He provided an example to illustrate how the Green Feature Program would work. Packet Page 439 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 4 Development requirements and options. While the Green Feature Program would be required for all development in the Westgate commercial area, the City could require developers to obtain a higher level of green features in order to achieve additional height beyond 3 stories. Mr. Chave said the planning process resulted in a lengthy document of plan and code suggestions that were presented to the City Council, and the City Council referred it the Planning Board for further review, a public hearing and a recommendation. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on September 12, 2012. Since that time, the Planning Board’s review has focused on producing a plan and code amendments that fit within the City’s regulatory system and are acceptable to the community. The current proposal is a product of the Planning Board’s review and reflects a number of changes from the original proposal. He highlighted the changes as follows: The initial plan called for pushing buildings out to the street and focusing on the street fronts. The Planning Board has shifted the emphasis to a quadrant (Southwest, Southeast, Northwest, Northeast) approach. The Board’s intent is to emphasize development within the quadrants rather than at the edges. The idea is to set development up with an internal focus would result in more walkable commercial areas within each of the quadrants. Rather than worrying about finding safe ways for people to cross SR-104, which is not likely to happen, the commercial areas within each quadrant should be easy to access and provide a sense of place. The proposed plan provides for opportunities without mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or insisting that all buildings be pushed up against the sidewalk lines. However, open space and amenity space would still be required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants. The plan still encourages development closer to the street. If buildings are placed along the edges, there will be more space within each quadrant for open space and public amenities. Although the Board felt it was less important to focus on the SR-104 frontage, elements such as open space, amenities, pedestrian circulation, and connections are still a main emphasis of the plan. Examples were provided to illustrate the concepts contained in the current proposal. Instead of development of up to 5 stories, the proposed plan would cap the height of buildings in most places at 3 stories, with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories only where the nearby slopes are higher or no residences are nearby. The plan calls out the specific locations where additional height would be allowed based on topography. A topographical map was provided in the plan, which identifies a slope of 30 to 35 feet in the southeast quadrant, 45 to 50 feet in the northeast quadrant, and 55 to 70 feet in the southwest quadrant. The Planning Board observed that a 5-story building (up to 55 feet in height) would be close to or above the height of the residential properties located above. They felt that a maximum height of 4 stories (45 feet) would be more appropriate, with a standard height of 3 stories (35 feet) for properties that have little or no slope and located closer to single-family development. It was noted that the northwest quadrant is adjacent to the cemetery, and the nearest residential home is quite some distance away. The City typically calculates building height based on the average ground height of the four corners of development footprint, and developments on slopes could appear higher. The proposed plan calls for a different way of calculating height that would not give a bonus based on topography. The height would be calculated based on the ground height at the street front. This new way to measure maximum height is intended to ensure that any new commercial buildings would not extend beyond the top of the slope where single-family homes are located. The initial plan called for an 8-foot setback on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. The proposed plan increases the setback to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets could be provided for traffic access. The intersection at SR-104 and 100th Avenue West has a significant step back requirement (30 feet from the intersection right-of-way) for the 3rd and 4th floors. The intent is to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. Mr. Chave summarized that, after the public hearing has been closed and the Planning Board completes its recommendation, the plan and code will be forwarded to the City Council for review. The City Council will conduct another public hearing before adoption is considered. Packet Page 440 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 5 Chair Cloutier reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and opened the hearing. Mr. Chave noted that the Board received comment letters regarding the proposal from Jan Robertson and Larry Williamson. Joe Tedesco, Edmonds, said he just purchased a home immediately adjacent to the Westgate commercial area and had no idea that the City was in the process of creating a new plan. He expressed concern that implementation of the plan, as proposed, would cause his property’s value to go down. He said he does not want 3 or 4-story commercial development to look down onto his property, which is in a quiet area now. Kathy Madigan, Edmonds, voiced concern about the idea of redevelopment, especially on Edmonds Way near 102nd Avenue West. Because of the steep slope, 4-story development would be allowed. There is currently not enough parking in this area and traffic backs up all the way past the PCC with cars waiting for the ferry. She said she does not support the plan to add additional residential units on the site, creating more demand for parking. While her property is located across the street from the Westgate commercial area and would not be directly impacted, her neighbors could end up with 4-story buildings behind their homes, and their property values would diminish. She expressed her belief that the space is too small for apartments or condominiums. She said she lives at the top of the hill and walks to the businesses at Westgate. However, people do not walk along Edmonds Way, which is busy and unsafe. Deborah Wertz, Edmonds, said her home is on 232nd Street, and it currently backs up to a quiet business park where trees line the southern edge. She is very concerned that the proposed plan would allow 2 and 3-story development that would look down into her backyard. She hopes the Board’s desire to limit building height so that commercial buildings do not look down on residential homes will also pertain to future development on the south end of the commercial area. These residential property owners do not want commercial uses peering down into their backyards. She said she is actually excited about the area being spruced up. She loves the green idea and would love the City to address walkability, but she asked that the Board be mindful of potential impacts to residential property owners. Robert Dofredo, Edmonds, said he likes the idea that the vicinity is getting an upgrade. He said he lives on the southeast corner of 100th Avenue West and 227th Street across from the cemetery. He asked if his property would be included in the plan. Mr. Chave answered that the plan would only apply to the commercial-zoned properties at Westgate, and no changes have been proposed to surrounding zoning. He agreed to talk with Mr. Dofredo after the meeting to address issues specific to his property. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has been following the Westgate planning process since it started in 2011. One of his main issues has been somewhat addressed by the change to increase the street setback from 8 to 12 feet. This would allow space for the City to add deceleration lanes or other traffic improvements to address congestion created by future redevelopment. He expressed concern that the plan only identifies the number of stories allowed. If each floor of a development has a greater than average ceiling height, the overall height could be significant. Rather than specifying the number of stories allowed, he suggested a better approach would be to establish a specific height limit. Mr. Hertrich pointed out that although the plan would require an additional setback for all commercial buildings that are adjacent to single-family residential, it does not address height as it relates to shadow and view blockage, which is also important. The plan also requires a stepback for the portion of building that fronts the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. However, it is important to note that the City just eliminated the stepback requirement in the downtown area. He questioned if the same thing would happen in this location. Greg Bough, Edmonds, said he lives on the hill directly behind Bartells. He expressed concern that the City has no control of SR-104, and the traffic is already horrid. The ferry traffic during the summer months is horrific, and redevelopment at Westgate would add further congestion. He pointed out that 75% of the commercial space behind the QFC is vacant, and parking is difficult in that area. It is necessary to get in your car to move from PCC to Walgreens because of the way the area is designed. He questioned why the City did not take a more proactive approach to planning in the area before it was too late. He pointed out that most of the commercial space in the relatively new mixed-use development known as the Compass Development is vacant, and he anticipates that vacancies at Westgate will continue in the future, as well. He also expressed concern that the proposed plan would accommodate commercial development that looks down on residential properties. Packet Page 441 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 6 Brad Ross, Edmonds, said he recently purchased a home on 96th Place West. He and many of his neighbors are concerned that the plan would allow future development to look down on their residential properties. This would cause property values to drop, and many people would likely choose to leave the neighborhood. Don Ullom, Edmonds, said he lives just north of the cemetery on approximately five acres of land. He expressed concern that a 45-foot tall building on the far side of the cemetery would look into the windows of his home. If the City is going to allow 45-foot tall buildings on commercial properties, then the residential properties should be allowed an additional story, as well. He said he drives, rather than walks, to the Westgate commercial area. While it would be nice to have amenities and landscaping, that is not why he goes there. He noted that parking is extremely limited, especially on the weekends. Many commuters park in this area to catch the bus, and this fills up the parking areas during the weekdays, as well. People who work at the retail businesses park on 100th Avenue West, creating a site distance a problem for cars that are trying to pull out onto the street. Deb Sabotta, Edmonds, said she likes living on 232nd Street, and she particularly loves how open the PCC parking lot is. When she drives down Edmonds Way, she can see everything. Putting buildings close to the street will make it more difficult to see around the corner. However, her biggest concern is regarding cut-through traffic on 232nd between 100th and 104th Avenues West. She noted that it is already dangerous to walk on 232nd Street where there are no sidewalks, and additional development will only make the situation worse. Gary Kidder, Edmonds, said he also recently purchased a home on 96th Place West, and most of his back yard backs up o a vacant lot that is zoned commercial. He also expressed concern that a 3-story building on the vacant lot would peer into his back yard. When he purchased the property he was told that a bank or something low density would be developed on the site. He said he works from home and has an office on the second floor where he is able to look out onto Edmonds Way. The cars come down the road at a high rate of speed, and pulling out of the gas station on most days is very dangerous. Allowing another building would make the situation even worse. He said he would like to see some improvements such as sidewalks, but he is opposed to a 3-story building. Charles Kalkwarf, Edmonds, said he lives on 99th Place, just above the paint shop on 100th Avenue West. He commented that setbacks are extremely important and questioned if the community really wants buildings right up to the street in the future. He specifically noted the difficulty people are having accessing SR-104 from the new veterinary clinic and Compass Development that is located on Edmonds Way east of 232nd because the ferry traffic backs up the street. He urged the City to require greater setbacks to allow space to accommodate an extra lane on SR-104, which he suspects will be needed in the near future. Deborah Wertz, Edmonds, suggested that the Board look at Westgate as a neighborhood within Edmonds, and not as a destination. The people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods shop at the businesses, but they do not draw people from a regional standpoint. Although making it look like downtown Redmond or Kirkland may improve the City’s tax base, this intersection primarily serves as a drive through for people trying to reach other destinations. While some good services are provided at Westgate, people do not drive for ten miles to specifically come to that intersection. She suggested they not lose site of the neighborhood that already exists with the hope of making it into something that will never be. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during the public hearing. Chair Cloutier noted that several concerns were raised about building heights, particularly in the southeast quadrant. He pointed out that taller buildings would not be allowed on the eastern side of quadrant. The 35-foot height limit would be measured from the front of the street, and the property has a slope of between 30 and 40 feet. The top of the bluff is about 40 feet higher than the street, and no building on the site would be taller than the bluff. Mr. Chave said it is important to keep in mind that the current BC-EW zoning allows development up to 45 feet in height, so the proposed plan would actually reduce the height in this location. Chair Cloutier noted that there is very little topography change between residential and commercial properties at the corner of 232nd Street and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave advised that the form-based code approach allows the City to address height differently for these properties if the Board decides it is not appropriate to allow 3- story development in this particular location. For example, a stepback could be required for the third story portion of the building. Packet Page 442 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 7 Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that the proposed zoning would not allow buildings to be constructed into the adjacent hillsides. Pushing the buildings towards the street would provide a buffer between the buildings and the hillside. Mr. Chave said the proposed zoning also includes a setback requirement from single-family residential properties. The language makes it is clear that buildings are not supposed to march up the slope, and there would be no advantage to placing a building closer to the slope because height would be calculated based on the street front elevation. The Board could consider increasing the setback more or be more specific about how much of the slope must be protected. Chair Cloutier recalled that early stage drawings emphasized pushing buildings closer to the street, but the Board felt a setback of 12 feet would be more appropriate. Allowing buildings closer to the street can create a sense of neighborhood and tie developments together. He emphasized that, as per the proposed plan, developing closer to the street would be an option and not a mandate. However, it would require a minimum 12-foot setback from the street right-of-way. Chair Cloutier referred to comments regarding parking. He suggested that the problem is less about the number of parking spaces available at Westgate and more about where they are located. Mr. Chave pointed out that any redevelopment at Westgate would be required to meet the parking standards. A developer would be required to replace spaces that are eliminated to accommodate development and provide the additional parking required for the new development. He explained that parking could be arranged differently to be more efficient. For example, underground parking is one option a developer could consider for meeting the parking requirement. Chair Cloutier recalled that citizens also expressed concern that there was not sufficient space for new development. He explained that the plan is intended to allow property owners to reorganize development to be more cohesive and efficient. Chair Cloutier suggested that, to address concerns raised by citizens, the Board should also reevaluate the height limit in the northwest quadrant to make sure residential properties are adequately protected from the impacts of potential redevelopment of the commercial properties. Chair Cloutier asked staff to respond to the suggestion that acceleration lanes on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West be added to address safety issues. Mr. Chave clarified that SR-104 is a State highway that is controlled by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). However, the City could consider this option for 100th Avenue West. He explained that all development proposals would be reviewed by City staff to identify potential impacts, and applicants would be required to provide appropriate mitigation, which could include an acceleration lane. He noted that the purpose of the proposed 12-foot setback is to ensure space is available if changes need to occur. Chair Cloutier referred to the suggestion that building heights should be regulated by the number of feet and not by the number of stories. He pointed out that the proposed plan identifies the maximum building height as 3 stories or 35 feet. It also indicates that 4 stories means a maximum of 45 feet. He said concerns were also raised about the need for commercial development to be setback from residential development. He noted that this is already addressed in the plan. He also emphasized the stepback requirement included in the plan for the intersection of 100th Avenue West and SR-104. Chair Cloutier recalled comments about 232nd Street Southwest being used for cut-through traffic in order to avoid the SR- 104 and 100th Avenue West intersection. He asked if the City’s Traffic Engineer considered this problem in his findings and offered potential solutions. Mr. Chave agreed to seek input from the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue and report back to the Board. Chair Cloutier said residents near the southwest quadrant are concerned about the potential 45-foot height limit, which could result in commercial buildings looking down into residential back yards. Mr. Chave pointed out that the height of the bluff in this quadrant ranges from 65 to 70, so there is no chance that commercial development would be at a greater height than the residential development. He further pointed out that the maximum 35-foot height limit proposed for the northeast quadrant would place commercial property below the top of the bluff, as well. Again, he reminded the Board that the current zoning allows a maximum height of 45 feet, and the proposed plan would reduce the height in the northeast quadrant by ten feet. Chair Cloutier referred to concern raised by neighbors that allowing residential development at Westgate would result in even greater congestion at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. He pointed out that the traffic study actually studied the impacts of redevelopment at 3 to 5 stories in height, and the proposed plan would reduce the height limit to 3 stories, with Packet Page 443 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 8 the potential for an additional story in some locations. Mr. Chave agreed that the traffic study considered a much higher level of development than what the current plan contemplates. He explained that, as per the traffic study, the additional number of trips generated by redevelopment at Westgate was dwarfed by the existing volumes on SR-104. Chair Cloutier agreed that traffic needs to be addressed, particularly on the north side of SR-104, where cars heading towards the ferry back up. Board Member Stewart commented that adding more residential units at Westgate would increase traffic volumes at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, particularly during certain times of the day. The City is “putting its head in the sand” if it thinks that that traffic congestion would not be an increasing problem as redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave agreed, but reminded the Board that the City does not control what happens on SR-104, and any required traffic mitigation would be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of the Traffic Engineer’s review of a development permit application. He cautioned that, until a project has been proposed, it is impossible for the City to identify what the exact impacts will be. The Board agreed it would be helpful to have additional feedback from the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue. Chair Cloutier recalled that a member of the audience suggested the City keep Westgate as a neighborhood instead of trying to make it a major destination. While he agreed that the goal should not be to make this commercial area like Kirkland, they can make it something better than what it is now and give it new purpose. Mr. Chave suggested that Westgate could provide a duel role. He recognized that the businesses serve the needs of the neighbors who are able to walk to the site; but they also serve as a destination to people who are coming from further away to shop at the two grocery stores. The goal of the plan is to enhance the area, and not necessarily create a new destination. Board Member Lovell said he was glad that Mr. Chave talked about how much the plan has morphed over the past three years. It initially started with 3 to 5-story buildings, and setbacks between 5 and 8 feet from the property line. The current plan addresses three of the community’s main concerns: building heights, street setbacks, and walkability and connectivity. He said the Board has had a lot of discussion about existing and future problems on SR-104, but it is not likely that WSDOT will be proposing any revisions to the highway in the foreseeable future. He said the plan recognizes that people will drive to Westgate to shop, and they expect to have a place to park. The plan would provide more connectivity and public space within each of the quadrants. It encourages both walking and parking in each quadrant, and enhances workability of the area in terms of space, dimension, green elements, setbacks, etc. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that no members of the public commented on the fact that the City needs to accommodate future population growth. It sounds like they do not want any more residential units as part of the mixed-use development at Westgate, when in fact, that is the development trend across the nation. He noted that no one mentioned the concept of transit-oriented development or the increased use of public transportation, either. SR-104, 9th Avenue and 100th Avenue West are major thoroughfares that are served by both Sound Transit and Community Transit. He expressed his belief that the City needs to establish reasonable standards to accommodate growth and provide lower cost housing in areas that are not zoned single-family residential. He reminded the Board that, although Firdale Village was rezoned several years ago with the goal of accommodating growth, redevelopment has not occurred because there are too many restrictions. He cautioned against doing the same at Westgate. He summarized that the intent is to provide a soft transition between the commercial and single-family residential development, and he believes the proposed plan accomplishes that goal. He said he supports the plan, but he agreed there are still a few concerns that need to be addressed. The proposed plan calls for a lower building height, setbacks, additional landscaping, and public amenities, all of which will benefit the City and its citizens. Board Member Stewart said she generally supports the plan, as it has evolved to address a number of her concerns. She reviewed that the purpose of the plan is to encourage public amenities, which is something that is lacking in this area now. The idea is to create a place where people want to be. The concept outlined in the plan is consistent with the national and regional trend that accommodates the needs of the younger generation by providing gathering places and a variety of housing options. She said she supports the implementation of a form-based code approach, which looks are the relationship of buildings to the street, pedestrian activities and creating a sense of place. Westgate is a neighborhood center, and it would be nice to create an area where people will want to stay for a while. Board Member Stewart said she supports the “green factors” element of the plan, which represents a forward-thinking approach for minimizing human impacts on the environment. Increased height would only be allowed in exchange for additional green features and public amenities. She concluded that the Green Futures Lab (University of Washington) did a Packet Page 444 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 9 great job of reviewing the area and considering citizen input when they put together the initial plan, and the Planning Board has massaged the plan to a point where it, hopefully, is more acceptable to the public and the City Council. Vice Chair Tibbott said he continues to be concerned about how increased density will impact traffic, particularly ingress and egress locations. He requested additional information from the Traffic Engineer about the impacts redevelopment would have on this intersection, particularly during rush hour. He said he was specifically interested in learning whether people would use the main thoroughfare or cut through neighborhoods to avoid traffic. He agreed that 232nd Street Southwest is used as a shortcut, and the problems will likely increase with more residential density. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City could require a developer to provide a deceleration lane on private property as opposed to the public right-of-way. Mr. Chave said this would be an option, as long as the improvement is tied to specific impacts associated with a development. These decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis as part of the development permit review. He explained that there are two levels of traffic analysis: project based and system based. There are things that can be done before expanding a roadway, such as changing the signalization to help traffic flow better through an intersection. Unfortunately, the City’s history of adding lanes is very nearly a panacea. Board Member Lovell pointed out that lane changes would most likely involve more than one property, and property consolidation would likely be market driven. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how adding a deceleration lane would impact pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Chave agreed that is a general concern. Adding lanes could end up encouraging greater speeds on the highway. He reminded the Board that in addition to potential traffic improvements, frontage improvements would be required for all projects. These improvements could be located on private or public property, depending on the individual situation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City did any outreach to discuss what types of amenities would benefit the residents who live on top of the bluffs. For example, there is no pedestrian pathway from the top of the bluff to the commercial areas below. Mr. Chave agreed that the topography acts as a barrier to accessibility, but it also provides a separation between the commercial and residential developments to minimize impacts. He noted that residential neighborhoods could benefit if more services are available as a result of redevelopment. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that Edmonds is built out, and the only way to offer more residential space is to increase density. He asked if there is a label for this type of urban transition. Mr. Chave said the City of Edmonds is technically an urban area with some suburban characteristics. Edmonds must plan for the future, which means doing its part to accommodate the growth identified in the regional plan. Rather than creation new multi-family residential and commercial zones, the City of Edmonds has adopted an approach of creating opportunities for more density in the existing multi-family and commercial zones. The City’s goal is to create more housing opportunities in these areas, along with enhanced public and private amenities. The idea is to prevent the more intense development from spilling out into the single-family residential neighborhoods by providing a more subtle transition. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it is possible that the type of development envisioned in the Westgate Plan would actually improve surrounding property values. Mr. Chave said this would be true to the extent each commercial property owner decides to upgrade and provide more public amenities. He expressed his belief that the value of surrounding residential properties could also increase through thoughtful new design. However, he agreed that the residents who live adjacent to the southeast quadrant have a valid concern. It is important to provide an adequate transition between the commercial and residential uses in this location where there is not a significant topographical change to provide separation. He suggested the Board study this issue further. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed plan would require a developer to use innovative techniques to deal with stormwater issues as opposed to drains in parking lots. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, and noted that developers would be encouraged to incorporate stormwater elements into the landscaping and amenities that are provided on site. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to the Compass Development, which has raised concerns from a number of citizens. He questioned if the proposed plan adequately describes and illustrates the kinds of things they want to see at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, particularly noting the details regarding amenity spaces and the implementation of the Green Factor program. None of that was in place for the Compass Development. Packet Page 445 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to respond to concerns raised by citizens about view obstruction for merging traffic. Mr. Chave said the setbacks, rights-of-way and traffic signals are intended to address this issue. Visibility should not be an issue because the traffic signal controls how traffic moves. However, he acknowledged that, at some point, the City will need to consider issues at some of the other access points. It is hoped that a better solution can be found for the opposing turns at the PCC and QFC sites, but this will not occur until redevelopment happens. He summarized that the plan will provide opportunities to address some of the pre-existing problems. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if using a form-based code approach would provide enough incentive for property owners to move forward with redevelopment. Mr. Chave said this will be up to the individual property owners, but one property owner has been following the process and is thinking about the possibilities the proposed plan offers. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to Board Member Lovell’s earlier comment that the Firdale Village code has too many restrictions. He asked if the same would be true about the proposed plan for Westgate. He also asked if developers would prefer to have the kind of guidance that comes from a form-based code or traditional zoning. Mr. Chave commented that the Firdale Village Plan was much more prescriptive, with an assumed layout, and the proposed Westgate Plan provides more options. Developers prefer the form-based code approach because it offers more flexibility but more definition about what the City wants. It provides a number of options to meet the requirements which adds interest and ensures that development is not the same in every location. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if staff has estimated the increase in residential units based on the lower height limits proposed in the plan. Mr. Chave answered that they have not recalculated the number of units, but it would be significantly lower than the number attached to the initial proposal of 4 and 5-story buildings. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City has considered the impact the additional units would have on schools, parks and other services that are not directly connected to the intersection. Board Member Lovell noted that the initial proposal would have accommodate approximately 180 residential units. Mr. Chave advised that the City would assess both park and traffic impact fees on any new development that occurs at Westgate. Development at Westgate could result in significant contributions to the parks fund and provides opportunities for the City to partner with developers to provide public art, etc. Board Member Stewart clarified that the proposed plan increases the setbacks on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West from 8 to 12 feet, but it does not mandate that buildings be located 12 feet from the property line. Mr. Chave concurred, but said the plan would discourage developers from having too much parking between the building and the street. If parking is provided between the street and the building, walkways would be required to connect the sidewalk to the building. Board Member Stewart asked if a 12-foot setback would provide adequate space to accommodate a deceleration lane, if deemed necessary at some point in the future. Mr. Chave answered that traffic engineers have assured him that is the case. Board Member Stewart observed that there is already a parking problem at Westgate. As more development occurs, it may be necessary to construct a parking garage at one of the quadrants. While she anticipates transit use will increase, she does not believe the parking demand will diminish because people depend on cars to do their business. Mr. Chave agreed and said that is why the City has parking standards for all development. He noted that because of the topography at Westgate, there is limited opportunity for parking to spill out into the adjoining neighborhoods, and there is great incentive for developers to provide sufficient parking for their customers. Regarding amenity space, Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed plan requires a 3-story development to dedicate 15% of its parcel size for amenity space, and it significantly limits the amount of impervious amenity space. The idea is to decrease the amount of hard surface over time. She observed that PCC is a great example of sustainable development; and hopefully, other developers will follow suit. The plan encourages “green” building, and it may attract builders who are used to implementing the concept. Board Member Stewart referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet on the last page of the proposed plan. She pointed out that the Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards have stringent requirements and suggested that this option be given 2 credits instead of 1. Mr. Chave agreed that the Board could make this change. Board Member Stewart commented that as the bluff continues to recede, the City will need to reanalyze the slope to make sure it continues to serve as an adequate transition between single-family residential and commercial development. Packet Page 446 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 11 Chair Cloutier closed the public portion of the hearing and indicated that the discussion would be continued to a future date to allow the Board to revisit the height limit on commercial properties adjacent to residential properties to ensure that the slope would provide an adequate buffer to prevent commercial development from looking down onto residential backyards. The Board would also revisit the height bonus score sheet to make sure the credits are commensurate with the cost of implementing each green option. In addition, the Board will review the traffic study results again in light of comments from the public. Lastly, they asked staff to provide an updated estimate of the number of residential units the plan would accommodate based on the adjusted height limits. Although the public hearing was closed, Chair Cloutier allowed the audience one more opportunity to address the Board. Ralph Wuscher, Puyallup, said his family and a limited partnership own the land where the PCC is located, as well as the parking lot to the east. They recently sold a third parcel to Walgreens. He noted that a building permit has been issued for an additional development on the Walgreen’s property, and the design includes an 8-foot setback. If this building is developed, there will be no room for a deceleration lane. He said he already gave the City an 8-foot easement to accommodate a wider sidewalk. Adding a deceleration lane would require him to forfeit another 15 feet to the easement, which he is not willing to do. Mr. Wuscher suggested that the plan require buildings to be placed at the property line, with no setback. He expressed his belief that no one will want to sit out in front of the buildings along SR-104 to watch the busy traffic go by. Requiring a zero lot line would result in more open area for parking and amenities on the interior of the site. He suggested that one way to address the neighbors concerns about buildings looking onto their back yards is to not allow windows on the backside of commercial buildings. He expressed concern that restricting the building height and requiring a 12-foot setback would end up discouraging redevelopment. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not discuss their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the February 19th EDC Meeting, and highlighted the following: Mr. Chave introduced the process for updating the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton provided a short update on the City Council’s decision to authorize funding for a professional facilitator to help in the process of creating a Strategic Action Plan Oversight Committee. He was asked to participate in the interview process, and it is anticipated that a recommendation will be forwarded to the Council in the near future. A subcommittee working on economic incentives reported on a number of ideas from tax deferrals to relief from taxes for new development. A subcommittee working on tourism discussed the concept of marketing Edmonds as a place to visit rather than a destination. One idea was drawing cruise ship passengers to shop in the City. There was some discussion about the potential of opening a fine arts museum in Edmonds, but major obstacles include both funding and location. Board Member Lovell reported that he and Farrell Fleming, the Executive Director of the Edmonds Senior Center, will lead a discussion at the City Council’s March 14th retreat regarding implementation of the Strategic Action Plan elements related to the Senior Center. They made a similar presentation to the City Council’s Parks, Planning and Public works Committee. Board Member Tibbott thanked the public for participating in the public hearing. The Board takes their comments seriously and hopes to mitigate their concerns to the extent possible before the plan is forwarded to the City Council. Packet Page 447 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 7 complicate the provision in ECDC 17.40.020(J). He reminded the Board that the FCC has indicated they are still working on the rulemaking and interpretation. There has been some push back from other agencies regarding the FCC’s interpretation, which is still in draft form. Therefore, including wording in ECDC 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) from the FCC’s draft interpretation would be a mistake. It would make more sense to refer to Section 6409 and how it is ultimately interpreted. While the FCC’s interpretation will have substantial weight, it will not be the final say. Board Member Clarke recalled that, in some situations, the City has required a nonconforming property to be abated after a certain period of time. He asked if this concept could also be applied to nonconforming WTF’s. Mr. Chave said there are provisions in the code that allow the City to require abatement of certain kinds of nonconformity. The provision is typically used when properties are annexed into the City such as a commercial use located in a residential zone. He reminded the Board that there are only two nonconforming WTF’s in the City at this time, and the industry has indicated the locations are important to their networks and they do not have other alternatives. The FCC regulations make it clear that the City cannot require abatement of these sites. Mr. Chave agreed that screening is not always the best approach for enhancing the appearance of a WTF. Screening on rooftop facilities could be more objectionable than the equipment, itself. He cautioned against requiring screening in all instances. The proposed language is intended to provide flexibility to have discussions about appearance at the time of installation and change. As no one else in the audience indicated a desire to participate, Chair Reed closed the public hearing. Chair Reed summarized the Board’s discussion as follows: The Board Members generally concur with the language proposed by staff for ECDC 20.50.010(F). The Board also supports the proposed change that would add the word “new” before “monopole facilities” in the third line of Table 20.50.060(B)(1) Staff is recommending that the amendments to ECDC 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) be eliminated from the proposed amendment. However, Mr. Busch has expressed concern that he was unaware of the staff’s proposal to eliminate the language and he would like more time to consider alternatives. The Board will need to decide if the language should be removed or modified to more accurately reflect the intent. The Board discussed the need to clarify what is meant by “substantial change.” The Board discussed options for modifying ECDC to address concerns raised by the Board, the staff and Mr. Busch. At issue is whether the provision should require providers to improve nonconforming situations or simply maintain the status quo. The Board appeared to favor the language put forward by Board Member Reed. Chair Reed recommended the Board continue the public hearing to a date certain for further discussion of the above mentioned items. It was noted that if Mr. Lyons is unable to attend the continued hearing, he could submit his comments in writing for the Board’s consideration. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER AMD20130016 TO JANUARY 8, 2014. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the latest draft of the Westgate Plan (Attachment 1), dated December 11, 2013. He noted that he also provided, via email, a draft version showing the changes that were made based on the Board’s feedback at their last meeting. The most recent changes are identified in red. He reviewed that most of the changes were intended to deal with building location within the different quadrants. He recalled that the study prepared by the University of Washington mandated where buildings had to be located, and the Board raised questions about whether those locations would work in every case, particularly during the interim period. He advised that ECDC 16.110.010(C) outlines generally where they want the buildings to be, but it allows flexibility if a developer can demonstrate that a different location would make more sense. He summarized that the intent, over time, is for the buildings to migrate to a consistent location within the different Packet Page 448 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 8 quadrants, but the proposed language recognizes that this change will depend on the type and timing of future development. Staff believes that more flexibility is appropriate. Mr. Chave advised that the Height Bonus Table, which outlines the requirements for obtaining a one-story height bonus, was also updated to make it clear that building height in the Westgate area would be limited to four stories. In no instance would five stories be allowed. The table was also updated to reflect comments submitted by Vice Chair Stewart and Board Member Lovell. Mr. Chave explained that the proposed plan is geared towards the quadrant approach rather than treating the entire Westgate area as one development. He referred the Board to pictures he provided of the award-winning Orenco Station development in Hillsboro, Oregon, which illustrates the concept the City is trying to achieve with the Westgate Plan. While Orenco Station is much larger than the Westgate area, the commercial development fronts on a 45-mile-per-hour arterial that is actually wider than SR-104. He pointed out how the Orenco Station development works well with public space and buildings fronting on the highway. He commented that it is not so much that all the activity occurs along the frontage, but the buildings frame and act as a buffer between the roadway and the more active spaces on the side streets and behind. He particularly noted the picture of a farmer’s market, which occurs behind the street front commercial space in the parking area that is adjacent to the side street. He also noted there are significant trees in the parking area, creating an attractive space for more public activity. He summarized that there is some advantage to having the buildings at the street front, not necessarily to create activity on SR-104, but it gives presence to create more amenities and open space inside the site by pushing the buildings out. When buildings are pushed back from the sidewalk, nothing but parking occurs between the street and buildings. Vice Chair Stewart asked how far back from the right-of-way the buildings in the Orenco Station development were placed. Mr. Chave said he does not have the exact measurement, but it is basically the width of the sidewalk and a planting strip. The setbacks are close to those proposed in the Westgate Plan. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City recently increased the setback requirement from 8 feet to a uniform 12 feet along SR-104 and 100th Avenue. He noted that these setbacks would be measured from the property line, and would be in addition to the right-of-way space. Board Member Lovell commented that the City Council recently agreed to fund an additional study of the SR-104 Corridor. At a recent meeting of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), Mr. Williams, the City’s Public Works Director, spoke about meetings the City has had with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding the long-term potential for SR-104. He said WSDOT informed the City that it has no plans to change the roadway at this time, but existing right-of-way width would allow for a slight expansion of the roadway width. Mr. Chave said the Public Works Director is confident that a 12-foot setback requirement would allow for future adjustments to the roadway width if deemed necessary in the future. Board Member Lovell said he has given up on the concept of making the Westgate area bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The best they can do is screen the roadway from the activity areas. However, he supports setting the buildings back slightly and adding a landscaping buffer rather than placing the buildings right at the street front. Chair Reed referred to the illustration on Page 25 that identifies the proximity allowed between landscaping and the various building types. He also referred to the illustration on Page 27 which shows the relationship between landscaping swales and pedestrians. He expressed his belief that providing more illustrations in the plan would be helpful. Mr. Chave agreed and suggested that they could incorporate actual photographs as examples of the concepts called out in the plan. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that requiring a 12-foot setback on 100th Avenue would still allow ample room for a bicycle lane. She suggested it would be helpful to include pictures in the plan to illustrate how a bicycle lane could work. Mr. Chave agreed that a bicycle lane would make the most sense on 100th Avenue, since it provides a link to other bicycle trails. Board Member Ellis asked if the bicycle lanes would be placed in the setback area or the right-of-way. Mr. Chave answered that that bike lanes are typically placed within the right-of-way, but they could be added within the setback area as a public amenity. The Board had a brief discussion about “sharrows,” which is one option the City is using to mark bicycle routes on existing roadways. Board Member Clarke asked how the City could educate the general public about what “sharrow” Packet Page 449 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 9 markings mean for both cars and bicyclists. The Board agreed that simply adding a bike strip on 100th Avenue would not necessarily provide a good solution. Chair Reed commented that the plan should provide an illustration showing how all of the elements (bike lanes, right-of- ways, property lines, etc.) of the plan fit together. He expressed his belief that right-of-way allowance on SR-104 is important, even if WSDOT is not currently planning changes. The situation could change in the future if traffic is significantly increased as a result of development. Mr. Chave commented that, as per the recent traffic study, implementation of the Westgate Plan would not create a significant increase to westbound traffic on SR-104. The worst traffic problem is and will continue to be south bound on 100th Avenue, particularly the left turn lane at the intersection of SR-104. It is believed the problem is less about roadway width and more about signalization, and the City’s Engineering Department is looking at adjusting the light to improve the queuing. The Board briefly discussed the comments provided by Vice Chair Stewart via email regarding the Height Bonus Score Sheet. Vice Chair Stewart summarized that she is recommending that developers be awarded a greater number of points for meeting the higher LEED and Built Green standards. She also recommended that the Board consider allowing up to five stories for developments that meet the PassiveHaus or Living Building standards. She noted that these standards are very difficult to achieve. She advised that Kirkland was able to attract a PassivHaus project just by changing their codes to enable green building. She felt that this level of sustainable development should also be an option in Edmonds. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that allowing an option for five-story development in Edmonds, regardless of how stringent the requirements are and the benefits provided to the community, would likely cause contention and make it difficult to obtain support for the Westgate Plan. He reminded the Board that height has been a contentious issue in the City in the past. Vice Chair acknowledged that allowing an option for five stories might not be appropriate for Edmonds at this time, but she still supports increased weighting for the higher levels of LEED and Built Green certification. She explained that meeting the lower Built Green and LEED standards is a self-verifiable process; but the higher levels require third-party verification, which involves a lengthier process and greater cost. If the City’s intent is to encourage more sustainable development, they should offer more points for the more stringent standards. Board Member Lovell asked Vice Chair Stewart to explain how sustainable development would benefit the citizens of Edmonds, in general. Vice Chair Stewart responded that sustainable development can result in a better indoor environment and protective features for the environment. She expressed her belief that everyone benefits from sustainable development, which is particularly attractive to a certain demographic of younger people. Mr. Chave said one of the most significant benefits of sustainable development is that it focuses a lot on energy and water, which are both resource based. Making buildings more efficient will reduce overall operating costs and decrease the need for utility infrastructure expansion in the future. He acknowledged that community benefits from sustainable development are not necessarily obvious on an individual basis, but applying the concept community wide can have a significant impact on overall utility structures and rates. Chair Reed agreed that “green building” is an important aspect of sustainable development. However, other sustainable options, such as emphasizing walkability and encouraging less vehicular traffic, are also important. It is important that developers are required to incorporate a variety of elements as part of a sustainable development. Mr. Chave specifically noted that, as currently proposed, all development, regardless of height, would be required to meet a minimum Built Green or LEED standard. Chair Reed referred to the table on Page 9, which outlines general allowed uses by floor for each building type, and questioned if this approach is too restrictive. Mr. Chave explained that there would be more than one option for any particular location. The idea is that not one size fits all, but there are choices on what kinds of buildings a developer could construct. He agreed that the table could be modified based on Board feedback. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the only diagrams currently provided in the plan to show where development could occur and what building types would be allowed are located are on Pages 7 and 9. There are no drawings or diagrams that support the quadrant concept other than the map that identifies the location of the four quadrants. Mr. Chave noted there is also a diagram on Page 34, which identifies the properties that are eligible for four-story development. He suggested that the illustrations contained in the University of Washington’s study could be referenced in the plan. He commented that the Packet Page 450 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 10 overall verbiage contained in the plan is intended to focus on the quadrant concept, but adding diagrams to illustrate the concept would be worthwhile. Board Member Ellis pointed out that in the heading for Table 16.110-1 (Page 3), the title “MWU” should be changed to WMU. He also noted that references needed to be added to ECDC 16.110.020(D). Mr. Chave advised that these references would be filled in at a later time. Board Member Ellis asked how the term “small-sized dwelling unit” (ECDC 22.110.000) (Page 8) would be defined. Mr. Chave said a small-sized dwelling unit is defined as 900 square feet or smaller, as identified in the University of Washington study. These units would typically be one and two-bedroom. Board Member Ellis suggested that the definition for “rowhouse” in ECDC 22.110.010(A)(1) (Page 8) needs to be clarified. Board Member Cloutier suggested, and the Board agreed, that the definition should be changed by deleting the word “story.” Mr. Chave pointed out that a more detailed description of “rowhouse” is provided in ECDC 22.110.010(D) on Page 10. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the “landscape” section of ECDC 22.110.010(D)(1) (Page 11) requires that a large tree be provided or an existing significant tree be maintained in each rear yard for shade and privacy. He questioned if this would be a reasonable requirement for all building types. Mr. Chave agreed that rear yards may not be the appropriate place for large trees in all situations. He said the requirement came directly from the University of Washington Study, and he agreed to review the rationale and report back to the Board. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the requirement should be updated in the other housing type descriptions, as well. Board Member Ellis said that based on the language contained in the “access” section of ECDC 22.110.010(D)(2) (Page 13), he is not clear on how the “optimal court dimension” would be measured. Mr. Chave said the intent is to require a court dimension of 30’ by 40’. He explained that the reference to east/west and north/south orientation in the bullet at the top of Page 13 was getting at the need to maximize sun exposure and minimize shading in the courtyard. He suggested that perhaps ECDC 22.110.010(D)(2) could deal with just the issue orientation, and courtyard dimension could be addressed separately. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the language in ECDC 22.110.010(D)(6) (Page 21) provides a specific dimension for the courtyard requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that the language should be clarified, and Board Member Ellis noted that this same language is used in the other housing type descriptions, as well. Board Member Ellis referred to the “housing” section of ECDC 22.110.030 (Page 26), which requires that at least 10% of the residential units be very small. It also states that not more than 10% of the dwelling units can exceed 1,600 square feet in size. He said he is uncomfortable including these numbers in the plan without at least understanding where they came from. Board Member Clarke expressed concern about attempting to control the flow of demographics by restricting the square footage of the residential units. He suggested that demographics have more to do with affordability than the size of the units. He said he has never seen a code with this level of specificity, except for subsidized development. He requested more documentation about where the numbers came from and where they have been applied in other communities. Vice Chair Stewart recalled that the Comprehensive Plan calls for providing a variety of housing choices, which means different sizes to reach across the demographics. She expressed her belief that it would be desirable to have more choices than what currently exist in Edmonds, and the proposed limitation should help broaden the demographics, which is important for the City. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief restricting the size of residential units would actually have a limiting affect on demographics, as it would focus on the low-income spectrum rather than letting the market guide development. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the restrictions would force an increase in density. Board Member Clarke disagreed and said the size limitation would send a statement that the City is not interested in accommodating young professionals. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the size limitations would only apply to the Westgate area. Board Member Clarke recommended that rather than restricting unit size, developers should be allowed to build to meet the market demand. Mr. Chave agreed that is one option, but it would undermine the EDC’s direction to have more units that are smaller and more affordable. The size limitations are intended to target the specific type of development the City wants to see in this part of Edmonds. Packet Page 451 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 11 Board Member Ellis said he is not opposed to limiting the size of development in a particular area of the City, as long as it accomplishes the intended goal. Mr. Chave said the intent is to focus the residential development in Westgate towards people who want smaller units and use public transportation rather than private vehicles. He noted that larger units require more parking. He agreed to contact the University of Washington team to learn more about their rationale for the proposed criteria. Board Member Ellis referenced the “amenity space” section in ECDC 22.110.070(C), (Page 31) which requires landscaping in open space to have a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area and a maximum of 30% impervious surface. While he understands the intent, he suggested the language should be reviewed to ensure it makes sense from a planner standpoint and that it is even possible. Board Member Ellis referred to the “green open space” section of ECDC 22.110.070(C) and questioned if the provision pertaining to steep slopes would have prevented approval of the Walgreen’s development. Board Member Lovell said his interpretation of the proposed language is to prevent vegetation removal that makes the slope susceptible to landslides. He noted that Walgreen’s spent a considerable amount of money to construct a retaining wall to stabilize the slope behind the store. Board Member Ellis suggested that this provision may be too restrictive since it does not appear to allow removal of even a portion of the slope. Mr. Chave explained that, generally, the City allows some disruption of the slope, but not so much that it removes all of the trees above. He agreed that the language does not provide enough balance. Board Member Ellis questioned the meaning of the term “specified recycled mulch” as it is used in the “public space: sustainability” section of ECDC 22.110.070(C) (Page 32). Vice Chair Stewart answered that there is actually a formula for what the mulch should be in a rain garden to provide nourishment and moisture. It is important that the right mulch be used, but she questioned the requirement that it be recycled. Mr. Chave suggested it might be more appropriate to simply require a layer of mulch, without being too specific. Board Member Tibbott asked if the plan identifies any pull outs or bus stops for transit service. He said he likes to think of Westgate as a transit friendly location, but this will not be true unless appropriate accommodations are made. Mr. Chave answered that accommodations could be placed within the public right-of-way or within the setback area, but the transit agency will dictate where these sites are located. Board Member Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to include a recommendation for transit stops as part of the plan. Mr. Chave agreed that it would be possible to include verbiage in the plan that encourages coordination with the transit agency to locate bus stops and pull outs. However, mandating the locations would be difficult unless the transit agency offers its support. He expressed his belief that once the area starts to redevelop, the transit agency will likely want to add more stops, and he is comfortable there would be space to accommodate the expanded need. The Board agreed that language could be added to Item C.1 on Page 1 that encourages the City to work with the transit agency as part of any new development. It was also suggested that language could be added to the purpose section of the actual code language about accommodating transit-oriented activity. Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that Westgate could become a destination under the right circumstances. Parking will be a premium in the area, and the City should encourage opportunities for people to use public transit, walk and ride bicycles as opposed to using cars. Board Member Tibbott said he would like the plan to include a comprehensive landscape design for the rights-of-way that could be implemented at all four quadrants at roughly the same time as opposed to piecemeal as development occurs. This would be one way of tying the area all together, regardless of how the buildings are developed. Mr. Chave cautioned that implementing a uniform landscape plan for all the public rights-of-way would be costly, and there is no funding available. He reminded the Board that Councilmember Johnson has requested the City Council approve a corridor study for SR-104 that will talk about improvements within the rights-of-way. Landscaping within the rights-of-way at Westgate could be addressed as part of that study. He said it is important to understand that private developers are not typically required to fund public projects, but the City could require some landscaping as part of frontage improvements. The only way to get the landscaping done all at the same time would be through a Local Improvement District (LID), which must be approved by the property owners. While he does not disagree that developers, as well as the public, would benefit from a comprehensive landscape project, funding would be tricky. The remainder of the Board concurred. Packet Page 452 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 12 Board Member Clarke pointed out that the most recent development at Westgate has been one-story structures that are not necessarily consistent with the proposed Westgate Plan. It is not likely that these sites will be redeveloped within the next 50 years so change will happen very slowly. Chair Reed agreed, but emphasized that the goal is to create the opportunity for change, and there are some undeveloped or underdeveloped properties that could take advantage of the new code in the near future. Chair Reed observed that the Westgate Plan was already slowed significantly to address transportation issues. He voiced concern about delaying it further while the City completes a corridor study. Mr. Chave clarified that the corridor study will not be specific to Westgate, and it will not alter the transportation study that was recently completed. Instead, it will identify the types of amenities that are desirable within the public rights-of-way. He reminded the Board that, as per the traffic study, implementation of the Westgate Plan will create only an incremental change to traffic. The traffic study points out that there is already a high traffic volume on the roadway. Vice Chair Stewart referred to the “amenity space” section in ECDC 22.110.050(C) (Page 30) and asked if a green roof could be used to provide all of the required amenity space. She commented that the City of Seattle allows green roofs to count for all of the required amenity space, and this has resulted in buildings that cover the entire lot. She understands this is necessary in Seattle where space is very limited, but she would be opposed to the City allowing all of the amenity space to be located on the rooftop, with none on the ground level. She suggested that the City only allow green roofs to count for a portion of the required amenity space. Board Member Ellis observed that amenity space is designed to encourage people from everywhere to gather, and a green rooftop would only be available to people living within the building. Mr. Chave clarified that amenity space is not just for the benefit of the public, at large, but also for the benefit of the people living in the development. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to allow green roofs to count for up to 25% of the required amenity space. The remaining amenity space should be located at the ground level. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that increasing the point values on the Height Bonus Score Sheet should be left to the discretion of staff based on the Board’s discussion. However, she noted that they should be consistent with the language found in the “green building and site design criteria” in ECDC 22.110.030 (Pages 25 and 26). Board Member Clarke asked if an applicant would have to provide a separate room with showers in order to meet the “indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facility” credit. Mr. Chave answered that showers would not necessarily be required, but the applicant would have to demonstrate that an enclosed storage area and changing area is available. Chair Reed recalled that prior to the time when the Key Bank project was permitted, an interim ordinance was approved that reduced the setback requirement from 20 feet to 8 feet on SR-104 and 5 feet on 100th Avenue. Staff informed him that before the interim ordinance expired, Walgreens applied for and received permits to redevelop the entire area, including the bank site. Although the bank project did not move forward, the permit remains valid until sometime in 2014 as long as the design is not changed. He asked if it would be possible for the City to void the permit. Mr. Chave answered that the permit is vested and cannot be revoked by the City prior to its expiration date. Chair Reed referred to the Use Table 16.110-1 on Pages 3 through 5. He suggested that perhaps the City should be more restrictive about the uses that are allowed in the commercial mixed use area of Westgate. For example, is it really appropriate to allow car dealerships and service stations in this area? Mr. Chave agreed this is a worthwhile topic of discussion. Chair Reed recalled that, previously, the Board heard three different presentations by representatives from nearby jurisdictions about how they implemented a hybrid of a form-based code. The current proposal would take a similar approach by adding a small code section followed by specific design standards. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to identify a maximum height limit in the development standards so the information is available up front. Chair Reed expressed his belief that the proposed parking requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit will be insufficient, particularly when there will be no opportunity for on-street parking. He said he would prefer a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit and even more for larger units. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that having a lower parking requirement would drive the choices people make. Mr. Chave clarified that 1.2 spaces per unit would be the minimum parking requirement, but Packet Page 453 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 13 developers are not likely to put in too few parking spaces or they won’t be able to sell and/or rent their units. However, he agreed that perhaps the parking standard should be greater for larger units, which would provide an incentive for smaller units. Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide examples of where high-density residential uses have occurred in locations where on-street parking is not available to accommodate overflow. Again, Mr. Chave said he does not believe developers will under park the site. Board Member Clarke announced that the Compass Project has recently sold out, and the actual economics of the project were almost zero profit. The only reason it penciled out was because the land was purchased during the recession at a low cost. Providing underground parking significantly increased the cost of the project. Mr. Chave argued that a mixed-use commercial building in that location was sketchy, and it would have made more sense for that type of building to be located at Westgate. Board Member Reed pointed out that the individual sections of the proposed design standards are incorrectly labeled Chapter 16 instead of Chapter 22. He also suggested it would be helpful to number the bulleted items. Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and Form Based Code is tentatively scheduled for February 12, 2014. He agreed to update the documents as per the Board’s feedback and send out an electronic draft for their review. The Board can then decide if another review is necessary before the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Stewart inquired when the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) amendments would come back before the Board. Mr. Chave said the amendments would be added to the Board’s extended agenda in the near future. Chair Reed reminded the Board that they continued the public hearing on amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance for January 8th. This will be in addition to a discussion on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, a work session on Initiative 502 (cannabis) implementation, and a review of Planning Board procedures, guidelines and codes. ELECTION OF OFFICERS BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2014. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. BOARD MEMBER REED NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2014. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT ABSTAINING. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed explained that leaving the Planning Board was a difficult decision for him. He enjoyed gaining an understanding of what was going on in the City by participating on the Board. Although the Board does not have any action power, they have recommendation power even if some of their ideas and recommendations are turned down by the City Council. He will miss the opportunity he has had over the past seven years to participate on the Board and serve the citizens and the City Council. He thanked each of the Planning Board Members for the support they have shown and the insight they have provided on so many issues over the years. While they do not always agree, for the most part, they have maintained professionalism and civility as they wrestled with difficult issues. Chair Reed thanked City staff for working with the Board to provide input and support for the changes they want to make and the ideas they put forward, particularly Mr. Chave, Mr. Lien, Mr. Clugston, Mr. English, and Ms. Cunningham. He also thanked the City Council for giving him the opportunity to serve on the Board. Packet Page 454 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 15 Board Member Lovell referred to the City Attorney’s recommended new language for ECDC 17.40.020.J and asked if it is a given that technology advancements will constantly make the equipment smaller. He suggested that the proposed language could create a problem if the equipment increases rather than decreases in size in the future. Mr. Clugston said that equipment is generally getting smaller. However, providers now want to stack their technologies on top of each other. The proposed change was the City Attorney’s attempt to create a theoretical box where the facilities could be located. He pointed out that the State and Federal Government, through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), came out with additional guidance in early 2013 that indicated that the box described in the City’s code, which would go around an existing antenna and support structure, would be on top of an entire roof of a building and not just be where the antennas are located. Mr. Clugston said he forwarded the proposed new language to the WCF providers, and they expressed their belief that it was too restrictive. Mr. Clugston said staff’s intent is to bring these additional amendments to a public hearing on December 11th, parallel with the amendments proposed by AT&T. He advised that the City Attorney has contacted his counterpart, who is a specialist in WCF’s, to seek additional language that would meet the City’s intent of shrinking the facilities to be visually less intrusive and also be consistent with the FCC’s guidelines. He said he anticipates that the proposed language in EDCD 17.40.020.J may be different at the hearing. However, the point is to allow antennas to be replaced on existing nonconforming sites. Board Member Lovell observed that the Planning Board and staff spent a significant amount of time rewriting the WCF code language in 2011, yet it seems they have to continually amend it to address changing technology. Mr. Clugston noted that in addition to changes in technology, the FCC continually changes the requirements, which necessitates amendments to the City’s code. He said he anticipates that the City will have to continually update the chapter. Vice Chair Stewart asked what happened to the concept of making monopoles look like trees. Mr. Clugston said the Board discussed this idea, but decided not to go that route. In his 6.5 years with the City, there have not been any requests for monopoles. He does not believe they will see a lot of applications for this type of facility. Instead, providers are more interested in co-locating on existing structures and utility poles. Board Member Tibbott asked if the WCF codes contain language related to painting or coloring the poles. Mr. Clugston said the proposed amendment to ECDC 20.50.050.G would provide additional clarification regarding finish of a monopole. As proposed it can be laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material, and it must be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. He noted that utility pole replacements must be wood and similar in size and scale to what previously existed. Board Member Tibbott said there is a monopole in his neighborhood around 84th and 182nd. Although it was a neutral color (silver) it really stood out against the surrounding trees. It was eventually painted brown to blend in better. Mr. Clugston pointed out that this pole led to the initial code change in 2009 that prohibited providers from replacing wooden utility poles with large, metal objects. Mr. Clugston summarized that the proposed changes are small, and the intent is to bring them forward for public hearing on December 11th in conjunction with the amendments proposed by AT&T. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave said that in the Staff Report for this item, he suggested that rather than having a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form-based code on December 11th, the Board could have a detailed work session. He referred to the three sets of plan and code changes that were attached to the Staff Report: Comprehensive Plan Changes. This document outlines the current Comprehensive Plan language related to Westgate, goals contained in the University of Washington Plan, and how they could potentially be combined to reflect the intent of the Westgate Study. Code Changes to Implement the Westgate Study. The language in this document is all new and has two components. The first component (ECDC 16.110) is a new Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone that would apply to Westgate. While it looks like a standard zoning classification, it is pared down. It uses a table, similar to the one used in the Downtown Business (BD) zones to simplify and easily reference what is and is not allowed. The second component (16.110.020) would be site development standards. The bulk of this component would refer to the Design Standards for the WMU zone (ECDC 22.110). Packet Page 455 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 16 Design Standards for the Westgate Mixed Use District. This document takes all the form-based design discussion from the University of Washington’s plan and puts it into the code as a “design standards” chapter. Basically, the “form-based” elements of the code would be called “design standards.” He noted that usually design standards talk about façade design, etc. But the proposed design standards would go further to talk about overall form of the buildings, relationship of the buildings, etc. Mr. Chave explained that the combination of these three documents is staff’s attempt to illustrate the changes needed to implement the Westgate Plan and form-based code. He summarized that most of the form-based elements are in the design standards chapter, while the basic zoning provisions are in the new Westgate Mixed Use District. He said that while the proposed approach is not a pure version of form-based code, it enables the form-based elements to fit within the City’s overall regulatory scheme so people are not confused. The approach would be similar to the approach used for the BD zones (a use section in the zoning chapter and design standards that govern how buildings are designed and relate to each other). Mr. Chave said the purpose of this work session is for the Board to review the overall approach proposed by staff and provide feedback about whether or not it makes sense. Before the Board moves forward with a more detailed discussion, staff would like assurance that the general approach is sound. Board Member Lovell said he likes the idea of incorporating graphics and pictures. He referred to the Table in ECDC 16.110.010 that lists the different building types allowed in the WMU zone. The subsequent pages provide a more accurate description of each of the building types. He suggested that on the chart, the building types should also identify the types of uses allowed. Board Member Lovell referred to the graphic showing a sample street cross section for the internal circulation drive. He recalled that the University of Washington Study provided street cross sections for SR-104, 100th Avenue, etc. Mr. Chave said that, to avoid potential conflict, the additional street sections would not be included. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there has been significant discussion at the City Council level about the concept of making SR-104 pedestrian friendly and moving the buildings closer to the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said the recommendation from the traffic study was that these ideas may have some merit, but they would require more detailed study. He said the SR-104 study, which was brought forward by Council Member Johnson, would provide an opportunity to look at what could be done in these public rights-of- way to enhance what happens at Westgate proper. Board Member Lovell noted that guidelines for amenity space, paved areas, parking, etc. are provided in each section and identify percentages for each. He suggested that staff run some test cases to see if there would be any room left for development once all of the requirements have been met. He noted that properties at Westgate have multiple owners, and applying all the design guidelines may leave no room on the site to construct a building. Mr. Chave said the University of Washington team was mindful of this concern. Rather than using “lot” area it might be more beneficial to define “site” area. Board Member Lovell suggested that the plan should contain a graphic of the entire Westgate area. Mr. Chave said there are graphics of the entire area in the University of Washington Study. Although intended to be illustrative, including a graphic of the entire Westgate area may cause people to attach too much specificity to it. Board Member Lovell referred to an illustration that Board Member Reed provided, which categorizes the four quadrants into mixed use, buffer and residential, without any further definitions. Mr. Chave noted that the draft document provides a graphic to illustrate how the arrangement of building types would work within the various quadrants. In addition, the first page of the design guidelines document provides a diagram showing where the steep slopes are located. This could be paired with the diagram staff prepared to illustrate the heights of the surrounding slopes. Mr. Chave explained that the way the draft WMU language is currently written, it would only allow development up to four stories. He recalled that the Board has had some discussion about potentially allowing up to five stories in at least one area. He said this will be an important point for the Board to discuss in more detail at their next meeting. He said that if the Board agrees with the overall approach proposed by staff, he would continue to modify the language in preparation for a more detailed discussion on December 11th. Board Member Tibbott said he likes the terminology of design standards, which is more helpful than introducing a form- based code on top of everything else. He said it makes sense to have a WMU district, and he imagines there will eventually Packet Page 456 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 17 be multiple districts throughout the City where more specific design standards would be applied. Mr. Chave agreed that is the direction the City is headed. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to ask the Architectural Design Board to review the draft design guidelines, particularly the building types and how they would be oriented. She noted that a form-based code requires more of a design approach. Mr. Chave agreed to invite the Architectural Design Board to provide feedback. Vice Chair Stewart said she likes the overall approach proposed by staff and the draft documents that have been organized. Mr. Chave said he is hoping that the draft language will not look so odd that people will misunderstand it, given that they are more familiar with the traditional code language. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Board Members forward additional comments and suggestions to staff electronically. Mr. Chave advised that the Board would have a more detailed discussion about the Westgate Plan and form-based code on December 11th. Board Member Clarke asked how the boundaries for the Westgate Study Area were established. Mr. Chave answered that the Comprehensive Plan identifies specific boundaries for the Westgate commercial area. It is basically the extent of the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone, with one or two exceptions. He further explained that the area of SR-104 from Westgate Center to where the road drops down towards the ferry and downtown Edmonds is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the Westgate Corridor. A specific study of the corridor was done in the 1990’s to identify the current zoning, which is largely Planned Business (BP). The intent was that these properties would be developed as low-level commercial that is geared towards fewer traffic movements. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Stewart announced that the last meeting in November and the last meeting in December have been cancelled. She reviewed that the December 11th meeting agenda will include a work session on the Westgate Plan and form-based code, a public hearing on the telecommunication code, and election of 2014 Planning Board officers. The January 8th agenda will include a discussion of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, a public hearing on code amendments to implement Initiative 502 (cannabis), and a review of Planning Board procedures, guidelines and codes. The January 22nd agenda will include a tentative public hearing on the PROS Plan, and the February 12th agenda is tentatively scheduled as a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form-based code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Stewart announced that she attended a Built Green Conference last week and was specifically interested in the session titled, “Do Incentivized Green Building Programs Work?” The session proved to be very inspiring. Representatives from the Cities of Redmond, Seattle and Kirkland described the challenges and successes of their programs. She learned that the most important step is to offer priority permitting for green building. The second most important step is training for staff, and the third most important step is having codes that enable green building. She agreed to share her notes with the Board Members and City Council Members. Vice Chair Stewart announced that the next Planning Board Report will be presented to the City Council on January 7, 2014. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Clarke thanked the Planning Board for their hard work over the last few months while he was unavailable. He said it was a pleasure to read the recorder’s comprehensive record of the meeting. Board Member Tibbott reported that he attended a portion of the November 12th City Council Meeting and was disappointed that the City had to engage in the massive conversation about Building 10 at Point Edwards. He expressed concern about the heartache that was caused for the residents and the number of lawyers that were involved. He hopes the City can be clear enough about codes to avoid these situations in the future. He expressed his belief that an approach like the one proposed for Westgate is a possible way forward so that developers have a clear understanding of the guidelines and people purchasing property will understand the scope of the development. Packet Page 457 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 9 provide some flexibility can be paired with marketing and outreach to form a whole. Doing one without the other will not likely be successful. Board Member Lovell said he agrees with the EDC’s recommendation that real estate sales office should be allowed. He suggested that additional language should be added to the note that is located below Table 16.43-1. Mr. Clifton agreed that this would provide greater clarity. Board Member Ellis observed that certain types of services do not contribute to the goal of having a vibrant downtown. He asked how they can draw the line between the businesses they want and the ones they don’t. It seems that the goal is to get people downtown to walk from business to business. While some service uses do this implicitly, he is uncertain how others will fit into the goal. Mr. Chave advised that the footnote below Table 16.43-1 was an attempt to describe the types of services uses that are desirable. He agreed that additional language could be added for clarity. For example, they could include examples. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that a footnote be added to encourage service and retail uses that have evening business hours. Board Member Tibbott asked if it is possible for the City to partner with a private property owner to create a gathering space on property that is vacant or underutilized (i.e. a live music venue). He felt this type of use would create additional synergy in the downtown core. Mr. Clifton agreed to research this opportunity and report back. Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any feel for how much retail trade must occur before a service becomes a retail establishment. Mr. Chave said the classification would be based on the business’s primary activity. Mr. Clifton said he worked with the City’s Information and Technology and Financial Departments to prepare a matrix and map for his presentation to the Chamber regarding economic development. The City’s Strategic Plan calls for finding some way to measure whether the City codes and current business recruitment efforts are being manifested in an increase in sales and use tax revenue. The matrix identifies property valuations and the sales and use tax revenue generated by each of the geographic areas (downtown, Five Corners, Westgate, Highway 99, Firdale Village, and Perrinville) for 2011 and 2012. He noted that Highway 99 generates five times the sales and use tax revenue as the downtown. He noted that the information is available to Board Members upon request. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for October 9th. Mr. Clifton indicated that a notice would be sent to all property owners in the BD1 zone. Chair Reed agreed to meet with Mr. Chave and Mr. Clifton to review the updated draft prior to the public hearing. CONTINUED WORK ON THE WESTGATE PLAN Mr. Chave said the purpose of the work session is to explore in more detail two prominent parts of the proposed form-based code for Westgate: the amenity/open space and green factor section and the height bonus section. He specifically asked the Board to provide direction on whether they reflect the Board’s priorities and provide the appropriate balance to achieve the intended goals. Mr. Chave referred to the Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet (Item 6.5.3) and noted that at least one item in each of the categories (housing, green building, green factor, amenity space, and alternative transportation) is required for any development in the Westgate area. In order to obtain an additional story of height, an applicant would have to earn a total of 8 points, and the points must be spread over four different categories. A total of 12 points would be required in exchange for an additional two stories in height. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not the points required are sufficient to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave said he is not sure it is beneficial to include so many detailed options in the Housing Unit Size Category. He pointed out that most of the categories are not additive. For example, in the Green Building Category, a developer that obtains a LEED Gold rating would not also get credit for meeting the LEED Silver requirements. However, a developer could receive one point for each of the items in the Housing and Transportation Categories. He suggested that this needs to be clarified. Packet Page 458 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Chave noted that the weighting is important. For example, providing an amenity space that is greater than 30% of the total property requires a large piece of land. Therefore, the larger score (4 points) is warranted. He also said Living Building status is very difficult to achieve, and perhaps four points is not enough. It is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult to get from LEED Platinum to Living Building. If the Board wants to encourage Living Building, they could consider increasing the points. He noted that a developer has to meet numerous requirements to obtain Living Building status, which includes landscaping, surfaces, etc. Board Member Lovell recalled that three of the four quadrants at Westgate have relatively steep slopes at the perimeter. The Board discussed the need to take advantage of the topography and allow buildings to be constructed back into the hill so that at-grade parking could be accommodated under the buildings without penalizing the available height of the rest of the building. However, recent development in the area placed the building away from the retaining wall to accommodate the required fire lane. Mr. Chave clarified that the intent was never to push taller buildings into the hillside. The idea was that if the hillside is there, having a tall building somewhere on the site would have much less impact to surrounding residents. If the City encourages buildings to be pushed back into the slope, some of the natural buffer between the site and the residential properties would be eliminated. Rather than encouraging developers to build back into the hillside as far as possible, they should encourage them to retain as much of the hillside as possible. He reminded the Board of their discussion about the desirability of having buildings located closer to the traveled way rather than pushed back. He noted that four and five-story buildings may also require stepbacks. Board Member Lovell asked what benefit the City would receive by allowing taller buildings at Westgate. Mr. Chave said a lot of discussion in the Westgate Plan focuses on having greater proportions of smaller units that attract younger households who might find an active environment more desirable. Smaller units are typically more affordable, as well. The Green Building options would have broad benefits to the City. They are better for the climate and they put less stress on City facilities. In addition, the Green Factor options would have direct benefits to the City by providing more green space and landscaping, which people find attractive. Amenity space would be geared towards meeting space or public active areas, which also benefit the community. He said the City has been encouraging charging facilities for electric vehicles to reduce the amount of emissions. Car share, parking and bicycle options help reduce the number of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled in the City. The intent is that the items on the list will benefit the City or the general public in some way. Chair Reed referred to Figure 6.5-1, which identifies the parcels that are eligible for the 5th-story height bonus, as well as areas that are not eligible for development because the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He asked if the figure should be updated to reflect the step back requirement. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than revising Figure 6.5-1, an additional figure could be added to identify properties that are eligible for four and five stories, and where stepbacks would be required. He said Figure 6.5-1 is particularly important to make it clear that buildings cannot be set so far back into the hillside that the green barrier is eroded. Mr. Chave recalled previous discussion that the City should not necessarily force buildings to the 10-foot setback, and it would not be a requirement. However, if buildings are setback greater than 10 feet, it is important to provide connections and additional open space in the intervening area so at least there is still a presence or a way to get to the street front. Again, Mr. Chave clarified that Figure 6.5-1 was intended to identify where development would not be allowed because of steep slopes and where five-story development would be allowed. Four-story development would be allowed on any of the other parcels within the Westgate area, except where the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He suggested that an additional color be added to the map to identify the properties that are eligible for four-story development. Board Member Lovell recalled that early in the planning process, two or three concepts were initially developed for Westgate. One was centered around the concept of creating significant landscape buffers between the buildings and the highway, particularly along SR-104. He asked if it would be appropriate to include this concept in the plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Green Factor and Amenity Categories are meant to deal with the interstitial space around buildings. These categories are weighted fairly heavily compared to other categories. Mr. Chave expressed concern that the options listed in the Alternative Transportation Category are not well defined. For example, how many electric charging stations should be required? In looking at the overall rating system, he suggested that the most important categories are the Green Building, Green Factor and Amenity Space Categories. These are weighted Packet Page 459 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 11 more than the other categories. If the Board believes these categories are even more important, they could increase the scores. Another option would be to require at least one point in each of these three categories. He summarized that the scoring system should reflect the City’s priorities. Board Member Ellis asked who created the height bonus score sheet. Mr. Chave answered that it was created by the University of Washington team. Board Member Ellis asked how the points were assigned to each of the credit options, particularly those related to housing unit size. Mr. Chave said the numbers were based on available information. Board Member Ellis noted that, as currently proposed, it appears the City wants to discourage units that are greater than 1,400 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed that the goal is to encourage smaller, affordable units in the Westgate area. Board Member Ellis expressed his belief that some of the scores seem arbitrary. Mr. Chave agreed. For example, perhaps it would not be appropriate to offer a point for each of the housing ranges. If the goal is to encourage affordable units, then perhaps more points could be offered to developers who provide smaller units. Perhaps it is overkill to have so many housing credit options. As currently proposed, an applicant could accumulate half of the needed points for an additional story just by meeting the four credits in the Housing Unit Size option. Board Member Ellis asked if it would be possible to encourage property owners to aggregate amenity spaces to create large rather than small spaces on each lot. Mr. Chave answered that this would require that small properties be developed as a group. However, large properties have flexibility to consolidate the amenity space to create a larger area. Board Member Ellis questioned the benefit of creating a lot of small amenity spaces on the individual properties. He felt larger amenity spaces that provide enough room for people to congregate would be more valuable. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate a significant problem since there are not a lot of small property ownerships in the Westgate area. The language would allow a property owner to develop one property and consolidate the amenity space on another property that is under the same ownership. Board Member Ellis agreed that more specificity is needed for the Alternative Transportation options. He asked if the credits could be better related to things the City of Edmonds wants to encourage. Mr. Chave said most of the options are aimed at discouraging people from using private cars. Electric cars would have no emissions compared to gasoline, and the Sustainability and Transportation Elements in the Comprehensive Plan both call out the need for more charging stations. Car share parking encourages people to share vehicles, which results in fewer cars on the road. The goal is to maximize the use of the transportation facilities that already exist. However, he agreed that the Alternative Transportation options could be more specific. Another issue to consider is whether it would be appropriate to allow a developer to get more than half of the required points for an additional story by doing all of the credits in this one category. Board Member Ellis said that as he reviewed the Height Bonus Score Sheet in preparation for the meeting, he found he had insufficient information to judge whether or not the points proposed for the various credit options are appropriate. Mr. Chave explained that without detailed studies looking at the economic benefit of each of the credit options, the City must rely on experience. Once implemented, the City can keep track of what developers actually choose to get an idea of what is valuable and what is not. He noted that it is easy to get a feel for how difficult and costly some of the credit options will be to implement. Developers will probably not choose the more costly options unless the City offers more points. He said he would prefer that developers focus more on the Green Building, Green Factor, and Amenity Space options and less on the Housing Unit Size and Alternative Transportation options. Board Member Ellis said he would benefit from the Planning staff’s input as to what credit options would be better suited to the City’s goals. Board Member Ellis noted that the Height Bonus Score Sheet only applies to developers who are trying to obtain additional height. Mr. Chave noted that the required options would apply to all development in the Westgate area, regardless of height. He suggested that this should be clarified. Chair Reed asked if there are other bonuses the City could offer besides height such as financial incentives or tax credits. Mr. Chave said the score sheet was created specifically for the height bonus, which is where developers tend to get the most “bang for their buck.” The only other incentive that would factor into the bottom line of a project would be parking. He cautioned against offering tax credits. Packet Page 460 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 12 Chair Reed recalled that the Firdale Village Plan incorporated the concept of shared parking. Mr. Chave said this concept is not unique to Firdale Village and is available to any project in the City. The concept is outlined in the parking section of the code. Chair Reed suggested that rather than offering points for charging facilities for electric cars and LEED Silver ratings, perhaps they should be required. Mr. Chave agreed that charging stations could be required for any parking lot over a certain size, but he cautioned against making it a requirement for small parking areas, as well. He suggested that perhaps a minimum LEED Silver rating and charging stations for electric vehicles should be required for all four and five-story buildings. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart recalled Mr. Chave’s earlier comment about how difficult and costly it can be to obtain Passive House, LEED Platinum and Living Building status. She suggested that perhaps the City should offer 4 points to developers to obtain Passive House or LEED Platinum status. Living Building status is very difficult to obtain and should receive more points, perhaps as many as 6. She pointed out that when a developer meets the requirements for any of the three highest green building programs, they will also be fulfilling a number of other options included on the score sheet. Board Member Ellis suggested that the point system would need to be tweaked to implement Vice Chair Stewart’s suggestion. He pointed out that if a developer receives six points for obtaining Living Building status, he/she would only have to obtain two more points to qualify for the additional story. As currently written, a developer must obtain points from at least three other categories. He suggested that if the Living Building status would fulfill a number of other options, perhaps it should be the only prerequisite for a four-story building. Mr. Chave suggested that if a developer obtains Living Building Status, perhaps it would be appropriate to allow him/her to pick up the other required points in any category. This would recognize that Living Building status is an expensive proposition and something the City wants to encourage. Board Member Ellis said he does not want unintended consequences to discourage something the City really wants. Mr. Chave explained that if they find that over time most developers are choosing credits that are less important to the City, they could change the point system. He commented that it is difficult to be precise when weighting each of the options because each property owner will bring their own values to the equation. The weighting has to be a combination of what the City wants to see happen, as well as some recognition of how difficult and/or expensive it is to do. Mr. Chave agreed to revise the Height Bonus Score Sheet based on the Board’s comments. He suggested that staff could also solicit feedback from architects who are familiar with the concept. The Board agreed that would be helpful. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the Green Factor Score Sheet (Appendix 5a), which was developed and has been used successfully by the City of Seattle. He asked the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed weighting for each of the various factors. He noted that higher weightings recognize that some factors are more valuable than others. Mr. Chave suggested staff could apply the score sheet to existing development in Westgate, particularly the newer developments. He said he anticipates that most of the existing development at Westgate would receive a low score. He briefly explained how the score sheet would be used to calculate the requirements for a given site. Board Member Ellis asked if there are definitions for the terms used in the Green Factor Score Sheet, such as structural soil systems. Mr. Chave answered that architects and landscapers are familiar with the terms used in the score sheet. Mr. Chave said he can understand why vegetative walls would receive a higher score in the City of Seattle where the building sites are very limited. Green walls are costly, if done right. However, green walls may be less important in Edmonds, which means that the score could be lower. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that Seattle provides a list of additional resources that are available on their Green Factor Website. One particular resource is the Director’s Rules (10-2011) for Landscaping and Green Factor Standards, which provides definitions for the various terms used on the score sheet. She suggested that the City could provide a similar document. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Engineering Department administratively adopts design standards for various things such as pervious pavement. Packet Page 461 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 13 Mr. Chave suggested that Item H.4 on the score sheet (landscaping and food cultivation) should be replaced with “landscaping for habitat.” He said he does not believe that landscaping and food cultivation would be practical on business sites. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the language be changed to “landscaping for food cultivation and habitat.” Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Items B.6 and B.7 could be eliminated from the score sheet. She noted that there are no large existing trees on the Westgate properties. Mr. Chave commented that if the City wants to encourage developers to plant trees that will get large, then Items B.6 and B.7 should remain on the score sheet as options. Board Member Tibbott commented that the intent of Item B.7 is to encourage developers to preserve existing large trees. Mr. Chave noted that any large trees on the site will likely be located on the perimeter. He reminded the Board that the Green Factor Program could potentially be applied to other areas in the City, and not just Westgate. The Board agreed to retain Items B.6 and B.7. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item C.1 and noted that 2 inches of soil does not seem sufficient for an affective green roof. She felt the City should require a minimum soil depth of 4 inches. Before making this change, Mr. Chave suggested the Board seek feedback from Board Member Duncan. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that while vegetated walls (Item D) are important elements, perhaps they should not be weighted so heavily. She also suggested that it would be appropriate to provide some examples to clarify what is meant by approved water features (Item E). Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps Seattle’s detailed rules provide a description of this term. He agreed to check for additional criteria. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item F (permeable paving) and commented that greater depths of permeable pavement should receive a higher score. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit feedback from the City’s stormwater engineer. Vice Chair Stewart also recommended that the Board should review the City’s plant and tree list to make sure the score sheet is consistent. Mr. Chave pointed out that, other than a street tree list, the City does not have a plant or tree list. The University of Washington team used Seattle’s list, which is well researched. Board Member Lovell suggested that Item H.3 (landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent public right-of-way or public opens spaces) should be weighted more heavily. He noted that this is a definite public benefit. Mr. Chave concurred. He pointed out that the options in Item H are bonuses that can be added on to the elements listed in Items A through G. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to eliminate the decimals from the scores. She commented that it is so much easier to work with whole numbers. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed briefly reviewed the Board’s extended agenda, noting that a public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is scheduled for September 25th. He noted that the Board already received copies of the draft plans. Also on September 25th, the Board will continue their review of the two amendments related to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Chair Reed reminded the Board that they previously scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. The Board will also review the code sections related to telecommunications. He advised that, instead a public hearing, the Board will continue their discussion regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based code. Mr. Chave noted that the public hearing on the Westgate Plan would be pushed back to November or December. Once they finish the review of the Westgate Plan, the Board can move forward with the Five Corners Plan. Chair Reed noted that the second meetings in November and December have been cancelled to accommodate the holidays. The Board will elect new officers at their December 11th meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed reported that the next Economic Development Commission meeting is scheduled for September 18th at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room at City Hall. At the meeting, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from Edmonds Swedish Hospital will make a presentation regarding the hospital’s proposed plans. Board Member Lovell indicated he would not be Packet Page 462 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 5 is critical for anyone wanting to try new design. He encouraged the Board to continue to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Regarding the Board’s earlier discussion about Subsection 20.43.060, Mr. Chave suggested that if the transparency (window) requirement is specifically tied to the street level on the designated street front, which is where transparency really matters, it would be clear that the language in this subsection would apply to the portions of the street front façade that are not part of the pedestrian designated street front. The Board concurred. Once again, Chair Reed advised that the public hearing would be continued to February 27th. DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the document titled, “Revisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code” dated August 29, 2012. He advised that the plan has not changed in recent months. While staff believes the form-based code approach is appropriate to apply to zoning in both Westgate and Five Corners, it is also important to address the differences between the two locations. For example, the Five Corners plan could focus more on external orientation, and the Westgate plan could be more internally oriented. He explained that while there is some pedestrian activity on SR-104, 9th Avenue and 100th Avenue, there is more opportunity for walking within the quadrants rather than between the quadrants. This is particularly true when crossing SR-104. Going forward, staff believes it would make sense to reconfigure the Westgate material to place more emphasis on internal circulation elements. While maintain a connection between the sidewalk and the building is important, locating buildings against the sidewalk may not be as important. Connections within the quadrants will be more important than connections between the quadrants. Although different in scale, Mr. Chave referred to University Village as a good example of the concept staff is proposing. There are different activity areas within the large development. It is easy to walk between buildings in each of the activity areas because there are good internal connections. While there is also access to the wide and busy streets, the external access is less important. The strong internal connections provide an opportunity for pedestrian-friendly access for people to walk within the activity areas. He suggested this same concept would make sense for Westgate where orientation towards the perimeter of the development is important, but less important than strong internal connections. Mr. Chave recalled that the University of Washington team had some concern about using the same approach for both Five Corners and Westgate. They did their best to provide good ideas that can apply to both areas such as incentives tied to height, Green Factor elements, and guidelines related to building design, building orientation, frontage improvements, etc. However, the plan calls for buildings to be located at the street front. Staff is recommending that setbacks of up to ten feet be allowed in the Westgate area to take into account the speed and quantity of traffic on the roadways. He reminded the Board that the larger setbacks identified in the current code result in planting strips along the sidewalk with an expanse of asphalt between the building and sidewalk to accommodate parking. Retailers and developers typically want buildings to be more visible from the streets rather than set back behind parking lots. When buildings are set too far back, larger signs are necessary in order make the business visible for people passing by on the street. Chair Reed asked if staff’s recommendation is to address the four quadrants differently to emphasize certain elements that are different. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He pointed out that building type options are different, depending on the quadrant. In addition, the maximum height limit should vary, depending on the topography of the area. He also noted that while there is significantly more developable land in the northwest and northeast quadrants, there is significantly less depth in the southwest quadrant, and space in the southeast 1uadrant is severely limited. Internal orientation will be less important in the southeast quadrant, but it will be critical in the northeast and northwest quadrants. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to provide feedback and direction for staff to begin to prepare a more detailed plan for the Board’s consideration. He reminded the Board that the hallmark of the proposed plan and form-based code is to provide both predictability and flexibility. While the plan includes a lot of detail, it also provides a lot of options. This is important so that development does not all look the same. If the Board agrees with the direction proposed by staff, the language and diagrams could be modified accordingly. Packet Page 463 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 6 Board Member Tibbott said he likes staff’s recommendation that the plan should focus on internal connections. However, it will also be important to provide some safe pedestrian connections between the quadrants, particularly between the northeast and northwest quadrants. Mr. Chave agreed that connections between the quadrants is also important, particularly connections at locations other than the busy intersections. He recalled that the University of Washington team provided some cross sections to identify potential alternatives for external connections. The Engineering Department has recommended that while it is important to take these ideas under advisement, they should not be adopted as part of the plan at this point. A more detailed traffic analysis will be needed to make this decision. Board Member Tibbott asked if an SR-104 study would be required to identify potential pedestrian connections. Mr. Chave explained that if the City goes in the direction of a more internally-oriented plan, what happens in the right-of-ways will not be central to what happens in the quadrants. The plan and form-based code could move forward, as its relationship to the right-of-way would not be as critical. Vice Chair Stewart agreed with staff’s recommended approach of focusing on internal circulation for Westgate. She also likes the diversity of housing proposed in the plan, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing. She agreed that internal circulation is important, particularly in the northern quadrants. She said she also likes the Green Factors score sheet. She agreed that the built-to lines need to be greater, particularly on SR-104. While bikes are not recommended on SR-104, she felt that bike lanes could be accommodated on 100th Avenue. She suggested the Board discuss option of providing space for a bike lane on the west side of 100th Avenue. However, the bike lane must be located safely so that people parking on the street do not clip bicyclists when opening their car doors. She expressed her belief that a traffic study for SR-104 will be extremely important at some point in time given that 10,000 cars use the roadway each day and the rate of speed is high. Mr. Chave explained that as development occurs over time, turning movements and other safety issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He recalled that the recent transportation analysis indicated that the capacity on SR-104 would not be a problem. Board Member Ellis referred to Figure 7.5-3 (Page 58), which is supposed to identify opportunities for cycling improvements in the Westgate area. He noted that the illustration actually depicts the Five Corners area, instead. Mr. Chave agreed to make this correction. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the proposed form-based code approach would be much different than the current zoning code. He asked if staff believes a form-based code would be useful and enforceable. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and noted that some of the ideas embodied in the plan make it more user friendly than the current code language. However, certain elements of the existing code will need to be integrated into the new form-based code. For example, the allowed uses will need to be clarified. In addition, the proposed weighting of the various Green Factors will need to be adjusted to reflect what the City wants the end result to be. Staff is currently reviewing the language to determine the appropriate weight to give each of the items. He reminded the Board that the current code contains a parking standard that is based on use. This approach can be problematic as uses change, and it can result in excess parking because it is predicated on worst case scenario. Tying the parking standard to uses does not recognize that parking demands can be different, even for similar uses. Businesses know how much parking they need, and they will not likely locate on a site with insufficient parking space. Parking tends to be self-regulated. Board Member Ellis said that in reading through the Westgate Plan, it seems to be predicated on having certain types of uses in certain areas. He questioned if this approach would be flexible enough to address all four quadrants, which might have different requirements. Mr. Chave said it will be important to pay close attention to the section regarding building types and the maps that identify where each building type can be located. This is a critical piece that sets up a lot of the flexibility. Chair Reed said he has struggled with the issue of how form-based codes would be applied. He recalled that presentations were made where it was suggested that a hybrid form-based code would be a good option. He expressed his belief that a hybrid form-based code approach for the Westgate area would be appropriate. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Westgate area is zoned primarily Neighborhood Business (BN) at this time, and a setback for each lot is required. A form-based code would give a general development area, but the types of development and how the buildings are fit on the site would be more flexible. He summarized that form-based codes are intended to provide flexibility where appropriate, while giving sufficient guidance to result in the type of development the City wants. Important elements include building design, connection requirements, and the relationship of the building to the street. Form-based codes do not worry so much about setbacks between lots, etc. They look at the overall development pattern rather than lot-by-lot development. Packet Page 464 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 7 Board Member Lovell asked if the University of Washington team would be involved in the future. Mr. Chave answered that they may be asked to make an additional presentation, but they would not participate in drafting the code language. The document is now a City document that can be modified. Board Member Lovell asked how staff perceives the project will move forward. Mr. Chave said that staff will sort through the document and identify the elements that will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the elements that would end up in the zoning code. Board Member Lovell said he supports the staff’s recommendation to emphasize the quadrants and internal circulation. However, he also supports the idea of providing a pedestrian crossing between the northeast and northwest quadrants at some point in the future. Mr. Chave said the Engineering Department’s take on the issue is that while turning lanes are needed closer to the intersection, there may be opportunities for connections to occur further away. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the form-based code language will be much different than the existing code. The public has provided a lot of input, and there will be more opportunities for public comments. However, he is concerned that people will oppose the document because it represents a change. He agreed with Chair Reed that the best approach would be a hybrid code that includes both traditional codes and form-based codes. It should be emphasized that the hybrid form-based code would be applicable only to the Westgate area. Board Member Lovell noted that the extended agenda includes a review of the Edmonds Way BC-EW and RM-EW zoning classifications, which was referred to the Board by the City Council. He asked how this issue would relate to the Board’s work on the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning. Mr. Chave said this issue came about from concerns raised about the Compass development that occurred on SR-104. The City has received both positive and negative comments regarding the development, and some City Council Members have expressed concern about whether the zoning is appropriate. Questions have been raised about whether they want to allow similar development elsewhere in these two zones. He noted that staff would present the item to the Board for initial discussion on February 27th. However, he emphasized that this is a separate issue from the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave said the Board would also have an initial discussion about the time frame for short plats on February 27th. He explained that State law recently changed to allow short plats more time before they expire. Some cities have made the change, and the City Council would like the Board to consider the option and forward a recommendation to them. Board Member Ellis said he is baffled by some of the descriptions for landscaping and amenities. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that turning in and out of the PCC Market is already a dangerous situation. Mr. Chave agreed that the current configuration is less than ideal. Chair Reed suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to form a subcommittee of Board Members to assist staff in rewriting the Westgate Plan and form-based code based on the Board’s discussion with staff. Vice Chair Stewart indicated she would like an opportunity to review the document further, based on the new direction recommended by staff, and then submit her written comments to staff. Mr. Chave invited all the Board Members to submit their additional comments and questions to staff. This will help narrow the focus as they put the document into a format that makes sense and is not so different from the existing code. He said he envisions that the Westgate area would have its own zoning designation, as well as a separate chapter in the zoning code that integrates some form-based zoning concepts but retains some of the standard zoning look and feel. Chair Reed reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan was initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC), who solicited help from the University of Washington team. The document has been in the Board’s hands since early 2012. He questioned if it would be appropriate to have additional interaction with the EDC at some point. It might also be appropriate to have a work session with the City Council to discuss the change in approach recommended by staff. Mr. Chave agreed it may be helpful to have a work session with the EDC. However, he is hesitant to recommend a work session with the City Council at this point. Instead, the Board could report the change in direction as part of their periodical reports to the City Council. Chair Reed expressed concern that, oftentimes, the City Council remands items back to the Board for further consideration because the Board’s recommendations are not what they anticipated. They should consider opportunities to soften this interaction. Chair Reed observed that Westgate is a traffic-intensive area, and the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor talks a lot about traffic volumes. He questioned if it would be appropriate to consider options that would allow for expansion Packet Page 465 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 8 of the SR-104 right-of-way. Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding SR-104 would cost a substantial amount of money. In addition, the City must keep in mind that this is a well-used corridor, and it may not be desirable to encourage a wider roadway that provides opportunities for even more traffic. Chair Reed referred to Figure 3.1-2 (Page 16), which is an illustrative site plan showing an example development with building heights and uses. While he recognized that the Westgate Plan was built around this illustration, he questioned if including the document in the plan would limit flexibility. Vice Chair Stewart said the illustration helps show what could be at Westgate, and it particularly depicts the diverse set of housing types. Mr. Chave said that as the Board considers changes to make the plan more internally oriented, they will have to decide if the illustration reflects the changes they make. If not, it could be eliminated. The illustration will only be helpful to the extent it reflects the vision for Westgate. Board Members Lovell and Ellis expressed concern that including the illustration may provoke negative reactions from citizens who do not read the entire document. For example, they may interpret the illustration to mean that the QFC would eventually be eliminated. Chair Reed advised that the Westgate Plan and form-based code will come before the Board again on March 27th. Mr. Chave said this would give staff time to make appropriate changes based on the Board’s discussion. Again, he invited them to email their additional comments to him. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed reviewed that the Board’s February 27th agenda would include a continued hearing on the BD zone amendments, an introduction of the Edmonds Way BC-EW amendments, and a discussion about the time requirements for short plats. The Board’s retreat is scheduled for March 13th at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed reported that on February 4th, he met with Mr. Chave, Mr. Clifton and Commissioners Pierce and Witenberg of the EDC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss common issues that both the EDC and the Planning Board are working on such as the BD1 zones, Five Corners, Westgate, and implementation of the Strategic Plan. They discussed the need to coordinate the efforts of both groups so they do not work at cross purposes and double up on efforts. Board Member Clarke, the Board’s liaison to the EDC, and Commissioners Pierce and Witenberg, the EDC’s liaisons to the Board, have been asked to keep apprised of the work that is taking place and report back to their respective groups. Chair Reed said he also met with Mr. Chave to discuss potential agenda topics for the Board’s upcoming retreat. Topics include: Edmonds Community Development Code reorganization Updates to Vision 2040 and the Growth Management Act and how they fit in with what the City is doing. Isolating the Strategic Plan items assigned to Development Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments to determine which ones will fall into the Board’s hands for additional work. Budget changes and how they will impact the Planning Board’s work schedule. Development agreements and incentive plans. Chair Reed invited Board Members to share their additional thoughts about potential agenda items. The Board discussed that there might not be sufficient time to address all five items. Mr. Chave agreed, particularly since the discussion regarding development agreements and incentive plans could be lengthy. However, he noted the budget discussion would likely be short. Chair Reed said he envisions the Board will spend 30 minutes on each of the first three items, and the remaining items will be discussed as time allows. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell asked what role the Strategic Plan Subcommittee, of which Board Members Ellis and Clarke are members, would have as the plan is moved forward to the City Council. Board Member Ellis answered that, in his mind, the subcommittee has completed its work. Its purpose was to provide feedback to the consultants regarding the City’s position Packet Page 466 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 4 However, it is important to distinguish between a general policy leaning a Board Member might have and an actual prejudgment about the facts of a specific case. For example, a Board Member may have a policy leaning that development is good and he/she wants to see more development in Edmonds. However, that leaning would not require a Board Member to step down from a site-specific rezone application that comes before the Board as long as he/she is confident they won’t prejudge the application. Board Members must avoid showing partiality or a personal bias or prejudgment signifying an attitude for or against a party. They should ask themselves if a fair-minded person observing the proceedings could conclude that everyone was able to be heard. For example, allowing a proponent to speak to the Board longer than an opponent might suggest there is some partiality. The Board should also ask themselves if they gave reasonable consideration to all creditable information that was presented to them. There could be a conflict of interest if a Board Member stands to gain or lose something as a result of the Board’s decision. These situations are usually clear and obvious circumstances such as a financial gain if a rezone is approved or a Board Member owns the property that is the subject of a rezone application. Less obvious conflict of interest situations include a Board Member being offered a job by the applicant who is seeking a rezone. Board Members should contact the City Attorney if they have a question as to whether their participation in a public hearing would be considered a conflict of interest. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that the remedy for an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation is the same as for violation of the Open Public Meetings Act; the Board’s action would be invalidated and a new public hearing would be required. He emphasized the importance of identifying conflict of interest and appearance of fairness issues at the outset of the public hearing process. He cautioned the Board that when conducting open record hearings, in general, it is important to create a complete verbatim record. Every person who speaks during the hearing should use the microphone so the comments are captured in the audio recording. City Attorney Taraday explained that, as per the Public Records Act, any email that relates to Planning Board business is considered part of the public record. While the City does not receive a lot of public record requests for Planning Board Member emails, it could happen and Board Members would be required to produce all emails that are subject to the request from their personal email accounts. He suggested that, at some point, it would be appropriate for the City to move official emails from board and commission members to a City server so that board members and commissioners are not burdened with having to search for and produce emails from their personal computers. Emails on the City server can be searched by the City Clerk to fulfill public record requests. Until the City makes this change, he suggested the Board Members may want to limit their email activity. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED ZONING Mr. Hauss introduced the City’s consultant, Jennifer Barnes, Heffron Transportation, Inc., who was present to provide a summary of the transportation analysis that was recently completed based on the land use policy changes proposed in the Westgate and Five Corners Plans. He also noted that Ms. Barnes worked with City staff to complete the 2009 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. Jennifer Barnes, Consultant, Heffron Transportation, Inc., explained that the purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine how the proposed land use policy changes in the Westgate and Five Corners areas would affect the City’s current adopted TMP. Because it serves as the Transportation Element in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it is important to identify the potential impacts to the TMP if the proposed changes are adopted. She explained that because the proposed action is a policy change and not a specific development proposal, the analysis is still programmatic and intended to answer the question of whether or not the TMP would still address transportation impacts resulting from future land use growth if the proposed changes are adopted. She emphasized that whether or not the proposed land use policy changes are adopted, subsequent development proposals would still be subject to project-level State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, including a required traffic impact and access management analysis. Ms. Barnes advised that for the analysis, she evaluated conditions for the Comprehensive Plan long-range plan through 2025, compared the assumed future land use in study areas with the proposal, calculated additional trips resulting from build out under the proposal, evaluated the effect of additional trips on the City’s adopted long-range transportation plan, and evaluated consistency with the City’s transportation policies. The analysis identified the following conclusions: Packet Page 467 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 5 Build out of land use with the proposed policy changes would add some intersection delay, but the Level of Service (LOS) would remain the same (LOS D). With the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan in place, all intersections are expected to continue to operate within the City’s LOS D standard. Additional transit and non-motorized trips resulting from an increase in land-use density would not affect the TMP improvements and recommendations, and no changes would be needed. Ms. Barnes explained that the proposed design concept for the Westgate area also includes the potential narrowing of 100th Avenue West from five vehicular traffic lanes to three. This would provide additional right-of-way to accommodate a bicycle lane, parking, and sidewalks. The analysis considered the potential impacts of this change and determined that, with the projected 2025 build-out volumes, such a roadway cross section would degrade operations at the Edmonds Way intersection from LOS D to LOS F. She said she would not recommend adopting the proposed change at this time. If the City chooses to pursue the option at some point in the future as part of an actual development proposal, a more detailed project-level analysis would be needed to identify strategies for reducing vehicle demand through the intersection and/or configuring the right-of-way to maintain a wider cross section at the intersection. However, she emphasized that the proposed land use policy changes could still be adopted without adopting the proposed change to the roadway cross sections. Ms. Barnes advised that because the proposal is a non-project action rather than a site specific development proposal, site- specific characteristics such as driveway access, internal circulation, parking and safety are more detailed than is appropriate at the Comprehensive Plan level. Subsequent development proposals would be required to evaluate site-specific elements for consistency with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. She summarized that, based on the conclusions of the transportation assessment, the proposed land use policy changes would be consistent with the TMP policies, particularly those that encourage alternative modes and transportation system efficiency. Vice Chair Stewart raised a concern that the proposal to narrow 100th Avenue West from five to three vehicular lines would not provide adequate space for safe bicycle lanes. Ms. Barnes explained that, currently, there are two lanes for vehicular traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. As per the proposal, the street would be narrowed to one lane in each direction, with a turn lane in the middle. The additional right-of-way width could be used for bicycle lanes, parking, sidewalks, etc. The City must determine if providing access for non-motorized vehicles is an adequate tradeoff for reducing the capacity for vehicular traffic. The traffic assessment has determined that without some additional analysis to identify strategies to reduce vehicular demand through the intersection and/or reconfigure the intersection to maintain a wider cross section, the LOS at the intersection would reach a level that would be unacceptable to both the City and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Mr. Chave explained that there may be opportunities to change the street configuration while avoiding significant changes at the intersection. For example, it may be possible to provide bicycle and pedestrian opportunities on 100th Avenue West near the cemetery. He summarized that the traffic assessment concluded that more study is needed regarding the proposal to narrow 100th Avenue West. If the concept is eliminated from the plan for the time being, the proposed land use policy changes would still be consistent with the City’s adopted TMP. Ms. Barnes agreed that the concept could be pursued further as part of a future development proposal. Mr. Chave reported that City Council Member Johnson suggested that the City look holistically at the public improvements on the SR 104 Corridor. It may be possible to apply some of the concepts discussed in the Westgate Plan to the entire corridor. Board Member Reed referred to Table 4 on Page 8 of the Transportation Assessment, which identifies the current and projected number of primary and pass-by trips. He noted that “pass-by” trips refer to people heading home from work who stop at businesses along the corridor. He observed that the recommendation focuses on the primary trips and suggested that perhaps more weight should be given to the pass-by trips. Ms. Barnes explained that the general effect of both primary and pass-by trips on the transportation system is accounted for in the analysis. A more specific analysis that distinguishes between primary and pass-by trips would be required as part of a future development proposal. This more detailed analysis would consider specific impacts to the transportation system as a result of additional driveways, driveway reconfiguration, etc. Packet Page 468 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 6 Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that the LOS at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West would drop from Level D to Level F by 2025 (See Pages 11 and 13 of the report). Ms. Barnes said the comments about the significant reduction in the LOS level are based on the reduced capacity that would result from an intersection reconfiguration. The analysis shows that the LOS level would remain relatively the same if no significant changes are made to the intersection. That is why the analysis recommends that more study is needed before the City makes a decision to reconfigure the intersection. Mr. Chave provided a map that was prepared by the University of Washington team to illustrate the topography of the hillsides that surrounds the Westgate area. The map compares the elevation of the Westgate properties with the elevation of the existing development on top of the slope and illustrates that five-story development makes more sense in some areas than others. He noted that the elevation difference in the southwest quadrant is between 55 and 70 feet, and buildings of up to five stories that sit below that level would not create a problem for the residential properties above. In the northwest quadrant, the cemetery provides a significant buffer between the Westgate area and surrounding residential properties, so taller buildings would not have a significant impact. In the northeast quadrant, the elevation change is about 50 feet so four-story and potentially five-story development would work in this location, as well. However, elevation change in the southeast quadrant is only 30 to 40 feet and four and five-story buildings may not be appropriate in this location because they could rise above the surrounding residential areas. He noted that the depth of properties is less in the southeast quadrant, as well, which is another reason why larger buildings may not be the best solution for that location. Board Member Reed pointed out that Page 6 of the draft Westgate Plan and Form-Based Code indicates that all parcels would be eligible for height bonuses up to four or five stories, including the southeast quadrant. A height bonus score sheet is provided on Page 53 of the document and outlines what would be required for a developer to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave advised that the language could be changed to make it clear that the height bonus would only apply to certain areas. Height in some areas, such as the southeast quadrant, could be restricted to three or four stories. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to limit height in the southeast quadrant to no more than four stories. Mr. Chave indicated that staff would incorporate the additional changes and prepare an updated draft that clearly distinguishes between the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan elements. The updated draft would be presented to the Board for additional review. It was noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft Westgate Plan and Form-Based Code on November 14th, but this meeting would actually be a work session with a tentative public hearing scheduled for December 12th. Mr. Chave invited Board Members to forward additional comments to staff. Staff would compile a list of the comments for the Board’s consideration on November 14th. While it is possible for the University of Washington Team to attend the Board’s work session on November 14th, Mr. Chave suggested it would not be necessary. He emphasized that the proposal is now a City document to work through and make the appropriate changes. FINALIZE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN (HSMP) INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE AMD20110009) Mr. Lien reviewed that on October 10th, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the Port of Edmonds’ request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board voted 6-1 (Board Member Reed voted in opposition) to forward the HSMP to the City Council for approval based on specific recommendations. Following the Board’s action, they agreed it would be appropriate to review the recommendation one last time, in writing, before forwarding it to the City Council for final review and approval. He referred to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (Attachment 1), which captures all of the motions made at the last meeting. He noted that the recommendations were reorganized so that all those relating to height were placed first. Note: The list of the draft recommendations were included in the agenda packet but were not read at the meeting. Upon the direction of the Board, the list of recommendations was included in the minutes for additional clarity: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. Packet Page 469 of 787 APPROVED AUGUST 22ND CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 8, 2012 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Lovell advised that later on the agenda he would report on a meeting between the Chair, Vice Chair, staff and representatives of the Port of Edmonds regarding a proposed workshop on August 22nd. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON DRAFT WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Jill Sterrett advised that she and Nancy Rottle, from the University of Washington, were the facilitators who led the studies to produce the Westgate Plan and form-based code. She recalled that at their last presentation before the Planning Board, Board Member Clarke requested examples from throughout the Puget Sound region to illustrate the concepts identified in the draft Westgate Plan. The Board also discussed the importance of public involvement and input when defining the form that people want for an area that is being addressed by a form-based code. She reminded the Board of the lengthy public involvement process that occurred via an on-line survey, listening meetings and design workshops. In addition, the team participated in a series of workshop discussions with the Economic Development Commission. She summarized that, throughout the public process for the Westgate Plan, citizens indicated they were not so concerned about height in the Westgate area, but they expressed a desire to increase and improve public space for all ages. Packet Page 470 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 2 Ms. Sterrett said the examples she prepared came from the Cities of Mercer Island and Redmond, which are quite similar to Edmonds. She reviewed the following demographics for the Board’s information: While Edmonds’ population is greater than Mercer Island’s population, it is less than Redmond’s population. Redmond has significantly more land area than both Edmonds and Mercer Island, but Edmonds has more people per square mile than either Redmond or Mercer Island. Redmond experienced a 19.6% population increase from 2000 to 2010 and Mercer Island’s population increased by 3%. Edmonds population growth during that same time period was only .5%. The State’s average population growth was 14.1%. All three cities have similar percentages for people under 5 and 18, but the City of Edmonds has a higher percentage of people over 65 than Redmond and about the same percentage as Mercer Island. About 6.2% of Edmonds’ population is below the poverty line compared with 2.7% for Mercer Island and 5.4% for Redmond. The homeownership rate in Edmonds is 71.5% compared to a rate of 76.6% for Mercer Island and 52.9% for Redmond. The median household income from 2006 to 2010 was significantly higher in Mercer Island and Redmond. Each City had similar percentages of high school graduates, but only 43% of Edmonds’ residents over 25 have bachelor’s degrees or higher compared to 76.3% for Mercer Island and 59.5% for Redmond. The mean travel time to work for people over 16 was 27.7 minutes for Edmonds compared to 21.2 minutes for Mercer Island and 20.2 minutes for Redmond. Ms. Sterrett explained that in 1990, Mercer Island began identifying an area that could accommodate 3,000 new residents by 2022 as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). They accomplished this goal via a plan to revitalize their downtown, with most of the development concentrated near Interstate 90. They raised their height restrictions in this area from two to five stories and invested money to match federal grants to widen roads and add sidewalks and benches. Their plan calls for improving the public realm to encourage development to happen. She reminded the Board that the draft Westgate Plan would require public gathering places and improved landscaping for any level of development, and even higher standards would be required to obtain additional height beyond the standard two or three stories. She provided the following examples of mixed-use development that has or will occur in Mercer Island that would be consistent with the concepts proposed in the draft Westgate Plan: The Mercer, 7650 SE 27th Street, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2005 and 2006 on 1.78 acres of land. It provides 150 residential units (161,266 square feet) that are 96% occupied and six commercial units (13,156 square feet) that are 83% occupied. There are 246 underground parking spaces. Island Square, 2808 SE 28th Street, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2005 on 2.25 acres of land. It provides 235 residential units (217,058 square feet) that are 98.3% occupied and 14 commercial units (39,794 square feet) that are 85.7% occupied. There are 486 covered parking spaces. 77 Central, 2630 – 77th Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2008 on .45 acres of land. It provides 171 residential units (166,219 square feet) that are 96% occupied, and 8 commercial units (13,580 square feet) that are 75% occupied. There are 308 parking spaces. Avaria, 2441 – 76th Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project on 1.95 acres of land is expected to be completed in the spring of 2013. It will include 166 residential units, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, and 312 parking spaces. Chair Lovell pointed out that the parking ratio seems quite high in the three Mercer Island examples. Ms. Sterrett concurred, but pointed out that the parking is intended to accommodate both the residential and commercial uses. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, rather than providing only the minimum parking required by the code, developers typically base the number of parking spaces on their anticipated need to accommodate the proposed uses. Packet Page 471 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 3 Chair Lovell asked if the Mercer Island projects were based on a form-based code. Ms. Sterrett explained that rather than using form-based codes as a means to get mixed-use development, Mercer Island determined that the market would support mixed-use developments up to five stories in height. New mixed-use developments occurred after the height limits were changed to allow five-story development. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that at their last meeting, three presenters explained specific types of projects that can result from a form-based code, and the examples provided tonight are intended to illustrate the types of mixed-use projects that have been or are being developed throughout the region. Board Member Ellis asked if the residential units contained in the examples are rentals or owner-occupied condominiums. Ms. Sterrett answered that she did not know, but the team member who gathered the examples likely has the information. She said she recently spoke with Bruce Moe, who is currently developing a mixed-use project near Westgate. He indicated that the residential units would be rentals. The north building opened in May and is already 100% occupied. The south building opened in July and 42 of the 60 units are occupied. Mr. Moe suggested that this is the result of a pent-up demand for rental units. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the residential units in the examples provided appear to be about 900 square feet in size. He asked if this is an industry standard. Ms. Sterrett answered that 900 square feet is on the smaller end, which is what the draft Westgate Plan encourages via the incentives for bonuses. She summarized that smaller-sized unit that are priced for young singles, young families and seniors is the current trend. Given the current housing market, people tend to be more hesitant to commit to purchasing a home, and this has resulted in a higher demand for rental units. Mr. Chave added that unit size depends on the local market demand, the mix of the existing population, employment opportunities, etc. However, in the urban areas, the trend is typically smaller units for people who are employed in the local area. Ms. Rottle pointed out that the rental market in Seattle is currently much stronger than the condominium market. Board Member Clarke asked Ms. Sterrett to share information about her background and expertise. Ms. Sterrett said she is an urban planner with 30 years of experience as a practicing professional and consultant doing various studies for cities in the region. For the past five years she has taught urban planning classes at the University of Washington on sustainability, climate change, and other local planning issues. Board Member Clarke observed that none of the commercial space is 100% occupied in the examples provided, and an occupancy rate of 95% is required to be financially feasible. He noted that even the mixed-use buildings constructed before the recession have never been totally occupied. In fact, tenant improvements have never been done in some of the commercial spaces. He referred to the new mixed-use development that is occurring near Westgate and suggested that one major problem is there is no parking along the street to allow people to conveniently access the ground floor commercial spaces. When development occurs lot-line-to-lot-line, parking is typically located in a structured parking facility, and people have to find their way to the various businesses. There is no direct access from the parking facility to the commercial spaces. Ms. Sterrett explained that the draft Westgate Plan divides the area into four walkable quadrants. While most people will drive to the area, the intent is for them to park in one of the quadrants and walk to the various commercial spaces within that quadrant. Mr. Chave emphasized that the parking requirement can be met by a combination of surface and structured parking. Board Member Clarke commented that because there is not significant residential density in the Westgate area to support the commercial uses, it is necessary to provide convenient parking to accommodate the needs of those who come to patronize the businesses. If parking is not convenient, people will likely go to similar businesses that are located in strip malls where parking is more readily available. Ms. Sterrett pointed out that the draft Westgate Plan does not envision a large number of parking garages. Instead, surface parking would be available in each quadrant to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Clarke said this assumes that a developer would give up the right to construct a five-story building in exchange for surface parking. Ms. Sterrett expressed her belief that it would also be possible to have a five-story building and surface parking, but she acknowledged that it is not likely that the Westgate area would develop with five-story buildings on each and every lot. Ms. Rottle pointed out that five-story buildings would not be allowed on all properties in the Westgate area, but they would be encouraged on the properties located close to the steep slope if certain conditions can be met. Mr. Chave emphasized that the Westgate Plan is intended to be illustrative and would not limit a developer to a particular type of building design. The plan is flexible enough to accommodate various situations, and envisions a mixture of structured and surface parking to meet the City’s parking requirement. Packet Page 472 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 4 Ms. Sterrett continued her presentation by explaining that Redmond’s code allows for five-story development, plus a bonus sixth story with a transfer of development right (TDR) purchase. The TDR purchase must be from within the City of Redmond and can only be for land that is sensitive or agricultural approved. She said that Redmond does not have any requirements for enhancing the public realm by providing more landscaping, green space or public space. The draft Westgate Plan would require some landscaping and open space for base level development, and additional height would require the developer to meet even more criteria. She reviewed the following examples from Redmond: The Red160, 16015 Cleveland Street, Redmond, WA. This six-story project was constructed in 2010 on 1.08 acres of land. It includes 250 residential units (105,867 square feet) that are 94.3% occupied and 4 commercial units (5,376 square feet) that are 50% occupied. There are 174 parking spaces provided in the basement and 7 surface parking spaces. Veloce, 8102 – 161st Avenue NE, Redmond, WA. This project was constructed in 2009 on 3.03 acres of land. It includes 322 residential units (270,181 square feet) that are 97% occupied and 2 commercial units (5,066 square feet) that are 100% occupied. The project provides 130 parking spaces in the basement. Ms. Sterrett once again reminded the Board that the extensive public process for the Westgate Plan showed that residents wanted more public gathering spaces and amenities, and they did not object to additional height in this area. She reviewed that the Economic Development Commission particularly discussed the need for suitable housing for young professionals and seniors, which means smaller and more affordable units. They also discussed the need for a flexible plan to respond to market conditions. They agreed that the plan should focus height bonuses at the edges of Westgate near the hillsides rather than SR-104. She clarified that the draft Westgate Plan identifies a building height range of one to three stories, and open space/amenities would be required. Additional height of up to five stories would be allowed only in areas near the hillsides and when additional open space, amenities or smaller housing units are provided. She emphasized that the illustrative site plan shows one potential option for development over the next 20 years, and it not intended to identify a required level of development. The plan is designed to be responsive to market conditions so actual development could look quite different. However, all redevelopment would result in an enhancement of the public realm. Board Member Tibbott asked how the City would use the Westgate Plan and the form-based code concept to promote development in the Westgate area. He pointed out that the plan is a concept built around certain criteria and incentives, but it is only a concept. There are multiple ways that buildings could be placed and numerous options for public amenities, streetscape, etc. Ms. Sterrett agreed that the illustrative site plan contained in the Westgate Plan is just a concept. She explained that the plan would include basic requirements that each developer would have to meet, but it also provides flexibility for individual uses and building configuration. Ms. Rottle added that raising the height limit would encourage development, and allowing the possibility of an additional height bonus if certain conditions are met would further encourage development. It is also hoped that the extensive public process will alleviate some of the public’s fear about redevelopment. Developers want security in understanding the development parameters, and knowing what people want up front should also be helpful. Board Member Tibbott asked if the draft Westgate Plan would allow a developer to construct a residential development with no ground floor commercial space. Ms. Sterrett referred to the seven building types listed in the draft plan. She said that while many allow for ground floor commercial space, it would not be mandated except for properties near the intersection. Board Member Tibbott asked if sustainable incentives, such as encouraging mass transit, have been incorporated into the draft plan. Ms. Rottle answered that requiring public spaces and amenities would encourage people to walk and bicycle, and the proposed “green factor” concept would require developers to incorporate sustainable elements. In addition, the bonus system would allow greater height if more green factor elements are incorporated into a project. There are already public transit opportunities available along Edmonds Way, and the plan encourages parking space for car share programs and electric car charging stations. Chair Lovell asked how the City would encourage individual property owners to morph into the overall concept outlined in the draft plan. He recalled that there has been some effort by the City to encourage internal drives to provide access for groups of properties rather than a separate access for each property. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan would be a long-term plan that acknowledges that properties will be developed at different times. It does not presume that Packet Page 473 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 5 everything will change at once. As each individual property is redeveloped, the City would explain the various development options outlined in the plan to developers. He recalled that the City encouraged the Bartell’s development to link with adjacent properties for access. While the site was developed different than what the proposed plan suggests, it still fits and does not preclude someone else in the area from doing something that is more in line with what the plan envisions. Having a plan in place allows the City’s Economic Development Department to show developers various options for redevelopment of the area, and it allows the City to ensure that whatever is built is at least compatible with the overall plan. He said that, rather than a proscribed development plan, the plan is intended to illustrate available opportunities. Redevelopment will likely occur in stages over time, and sometimes it takes a catalyst project to show people what the opportunities are. Ms. Sterrett agreed with Board Member Clarke that parking will be an issue with redevelopment in the Westgate area. If the City wants redevelopment to occur more quickly, they could fund the construction of a parking garage to attract a catalyst project by providing convenient and accessible parking. Board Member Clarke pointed out that Edmonds Way (SR-104) is a state highway and the speed limit is 35 to 40 miles per hour. This makes the Westgate area different than the Mercer Island and Redmond examples where speed limits are typically 25 miles per hour and bike lanes are located along the streets. He pointed out the danger of accessing a parking structure from a busy 35-mile-per-hour street, especially given that there would be no clear path for vehicles to merge into traffic. He noted that none of the examples have surface parking. Instead, the five-story buildings are developed lot-line-to-lot-line, and parking is located below. Ms. Rottle said this development option would also be possible in the Westgate area. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that it would be physically and economically impossible to construct a five-story building with ample parking with access directly from SR-104. He cited the difficulty accessing the Starbucks and Bartells businesses, which are only one story. Ms. Rottle acknowledged that it is not likely a traffic engineer would approve a project with this type of access. Ms. Sterrett added that the plan does not envision that the parking structures would be accessed directly from SR-104. Instead, the plan encourages properties to link their internal circulation so that a separate access does not need to be provided for each parcel. Again, Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the plan allows numerous options for developers to creatively configure parking using a combination of surface and structured parking. He pointed out that properties on the south side of SR-104 would have more difficulty addressing the parking requirement than properties on the north side, which typically have more depth. However, the plan should not preclude a proposal if the developer can figure out how to adequately meet the parking requirement. Board Member Clarke summarized that the City’s goal is to provide a land use code for the Westgate area that encourages creativity and allows for more flexible development. It will be up to developers to figure out how the market factors into the equation. He said he raised questions about access and parking to demonstrate to the public that due diligence was done and that the Board thought through the issues and asked the appropriate questions. Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to provide enough flexibility in the code to allow developers to figure out what works and obtain approval for projects rather than requiring developers to amend the code to meet their needs or go somewhere else to develop their projects. He summarized that flexibility offers more options going forward. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the examples from Mercer Island provide a higher ratio of commercial to residential space than the examples from Redmond. He suggested that rather than requiring a specific amount of commercial space on the ground floor, the City should allow other uses that are functional and meet the market demand. Ms. Sterrett pointed out that, with the exception of development at the four corners of the intersection, the proposed plan would allow this flexibility. Some commercial space would be required in redevelopment that occurs at the four corners. Vice Chair Stewart noted that some businesses have trademark style buildings. She asked if the plan would allow for these buildings to be repurposed if the market demand changes in the future. Ms. Sterrett emphasized that the draft plan does not preclude one-story development, and it does not require specific uses. Ms. Rottle explained that if the code requires a 13-foot height on the ground floor, the space could be adapted to accommodate a variety of uses, and future retrofits would be possible. While they acknowledged there are still some details to work through, the Board agreed it would be appropriate to schedule the draft Westgate Plan for a public hearing. They discussed that adoption of the plan would require amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Development (zoning) Code, and Comprehensive Plan amendments can only take place once each year. Chair Lovell agreed to work with staff and Vice Chair Stewart to schedule the public hearing as soon as possible Packet Page 474 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 6 so it can be included as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendment package. Mr. Chave pointed out that a traffic study is currently underway to look at the proposed street configurations. The traffic consultant will review what is currently known about traffic patterns in the Westgate area, particularly the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue, and identify potential issues if the area is redeveloped according to the plan. The study will be forwarded to the Board Members as soon as it has been completed and prior to the public hearing. Board Member Tibbott asked if it would be possible to construct median strips on SR-104. Mr. Chave answered that median strips would be problematic because much of the right-of-way is built out. Board Member Cloutier emphasized the importance of making it clear at the public hearing that the plan does not mandate any particular type of development. If the Board would like to include the plan as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendments, he suggested staff contact the City Council President to find out how soon they can place the item on their agenda. Mr. Chave agreed to contact the City Council President. Board Member Clarke pointed out that QFC is a tenant of the grocery store building in the Westgate area. While he does not anticipate the store will go away, the draft plan offers more options for them to improve the site and enhance the area. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reported that since the Harbor Square Master Plan was presented to the Board by the Port of Edmonds on July 25th, he and Vice Chair Stewart have met with staff and representatives from the Port on two occasions to discuss the best approach for moving forward with the review process. It was decided that the best approach is to schedule a workshop discussion between the Planning Board and Port of Edmonds representatives on August 22nd. He referred to the draft outline for the workshop meeting, which was based on the group’s discussion about the meeting format. He explained that the meeting format would follow a fairly prescriptive sequence, which would allow the Port to provide a brief summary of the historical and administrative background associated with Harbor Square. Port representatives would also provide a presentation regarding the process that has occurred thus far, what is happening now, and what they anticipate could happen in the future. The goal is to focus on getting answers to questions that apply to the current process and avoid discussions about matters that extend too far into the future for which there are currently no answers. He noted that the proposed agenda for the workshop would place public comments at the end of the agenda. Chair Lovell recalled that the Board and City Council are under a great deal of pressure to complete several items before the end of 2012, including the Shoreline Master Program, Westgate Plan and Harbor Square Master Plan. It is important for the Board to focus on their responsibility to hold up each proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, make a recommendation, and then move to the next item. Vice Chair Stewart added that the Port’s representatives will present a timeline of the past, current and future processes, and they will invite questions from the Board. They will also attempt to address all of the questions that were raised by the Board at their July 25th meeting as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not have any new items to discuss during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Tibbott referred to the Strategic Plan Summary and noted that the very top priority was an interest by the citizens to develop and/or more fully develop the vacant and underutilized parcels of land in the City. While he realizes the Board has a full agenda and this discussion might not occur until 2013, he would like staff to provide information about where these parcels are located and how they are currently developed. He is particularly interested in parcels that are good candidates for a form-based code approach. Again, he suggested the Board at least begin some conversation about the vacant or underutilized parcels. He particularly noted the Burlington Coat Factory, Harbor Square and Antique Mall properties. Vice Chair Stewart reported that she presented a report on the Planning Board’s recent activities to the City Council on August 6th. She thanked Chair Lovell and Board Member Tibbott, who attended the meeting, as well. She also thanked Packet Page 475 of 787 APPROVED JULY 11TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PRESENTATION ON FORM BASED CODES June 27, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis John Reed Neil Tibbott CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Earling Kristiana Johnson STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Serv./Economic Development Director Kernen Lien, Planner Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Bruce Witenberg Don Hall Gail Sarvis Rich Senderoff John Rubenkonig John Dewhirst NOTE: THE BOARD’S REGULAR AGENDA WAS PRE-EMPTED TO ACCOMMODATE A PANEL PRESENTATION AND A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION ON FORM-BASED CODES INTRODUCTION OF GUEST SPEAKERS Mr. Chave announced that this meeting is a work session sponsored by the Planning Board, with invitations to members of the Economic Development Commission and the city Council. He said the purpose of the presentations is to obtain information from other cities that have implemented or are in the process of implementing form-based approaches to zoning and development codes. He introduced the following individuals, who were present to share their thoughts and experiences with the group: Chuck Wolfe, Attorney at Law, is affiliated with the Lighthouse Law Group and has particular background with form- based codes. . Joe Tovar has had a long-term career in public planning and land use. He has previously served as planning director for the City of Kirkland and, most recently, the City of Shoreline. Shoreline has been working to revamp their codes and reorganize their development code utilizing a form-base approach. Mr. Tovar is currently working as a private consultant. Shane Hope has an extensive background in public planning. She worked with the State for a number of years prior to becoming the Community and Economic Development Director for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Mountlake Terrace has successfully completed a form-based code approach in their town center and neighborhood center areas. Packet Page 476 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Chave advised that each of the presenters would take approximately 15 to20 minutes to share their observations and experiences with form-based codes. He asked that all questions be held until after the presentations. PRESENTATION BY CHUCK WOLFE, ATTORNEY AT LAW Mr. Wolfe said that “form-based code” is a term that has become more current in the planning and regulatory dialogue in Washington State over the last few years, particularly in mid to large jurisdictions that are interested in revamping their town centers. He said form-based codes are more common in other areas of the country than in Washington State. Because of the State’s topography the structure of its land-use regulations is far more evolved than much of the country. The State already has regulations in place that look a lot like form-based code, particularly from a more individual or district design review standpoint. The form-based zoning concept is not all that different, but it needs to be better adopted into the context of the existing Growth Management Act (GMA) scheme. Mr. Wolfe emphasized that form-based codes are zoning codes and implement the comprehensive plan. Therefore, they must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and meet the requirements of GMA. Because of the nature of the process, form- based codes typically require considerable upfront visioning and public involvement amongst the community and stakeholders. This extensive level of public involvement is consistent with the GMA’s public participation goal. Mr. Wolfe said people have questioned if form-based codes can be legally implemented in Edmonds, and the answer is yes; but only if they are implemented with the purpose, reflection, context and clarity called out in the GMA. Local governments have the police power to regulate in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, and the GMA encourages innovative land management that includes tools such a clustered development, transfer of development rights, etc. While form-based zoning is not called out as a specific tool in the currently adopted GMA, he does not believe the GMA needs to be amended in order to implement form-based codes. Mr. Wolfe explained that form-based codes are different than traditional zoning, in that they offer a placed-based approach that focuses on the physical environment, character and quality of public space, as well as surrounding private spaces. Form- based codes are also consistent with the current trend of emphasizing mixed-use, walkable, and compact development. They are based on spatial organizing principles that identify and reinforce an urban hierarchy and are typically more flexible than traditional codes. The prescriptive regulations found in a form-based code describe what is required, but are flexible enough to accommodate change. They are tailored to each unique place and situation, based on commonly derived community needs and desires as identified through an extensive public process with the community, professionals, city staff, and legislative bodies. The intent is to have a holistic vision to integrate infrastructure, buildings, space and design to boost the economic social and physical health of the community. Mr. Wolfe advised that conventional codes are more use-oriented, and form-based codes are more form-related. Form-based codes regulate the same elements as conventional zoning codes, but they give higher priority to the form of buildings and streets and how they interact with each other. Traditional zoning codes place higher priority on land-use elements such as height and setbacks. He emphasized that both form-priority and land-use-priority codes are land development regulations that must be consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. He explained that at the core of any legal analysis of a zoning code, particularly in jurisdictions where there is no requirement for consistency with the comprehensive plan, codes are considered defensible from a constitutional basis if they are uniform and likes uses are treated alike. In form-based codes, different features are treated alike with less emphasis on use and more emphasis on form. He said that while most land development codes include graphics that display features such as land use districts (i.e. zoning maps), form-based codes tend to use more graphics to clearly convey the intent. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that traditional zoning specifies density, use, floor-area ratio (FAR), parking requirements, and maximum building heights. When design review is added, it is possible to articulate the public/private spaces by considering such things as open space, building materials, frequency of openings, surface articulation, etc. Form-based codes allow jurisdictions to regulate these same things, but with a different approach that focuses on street and building types, build-to lines, number of floors, the percentage of built-site frontage, etc. He provided illustrations to show how each of the three approaches could be implemented on a city block and explained that form-based codes include the following required components: a regulating plan that provides a graphic representation of what an area should look like, public space standards, building form standards, administration, and definitions. He summarized that form-based zoning offers a different Packet Page 477 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 3 way of presenting conventional material in a more graphic way to provide clarity. He provided examples of both regulating and illustrative plans. He said form-based codes can also include the following optional components: architectural standards, landscaping standards, signage standards, environmental resource standards, and annotation. These standards would be more graphically presented in a form-based code than in a traditional code. Mr. Wolfe said that when attempting to implement form-based codes, most jurisdictions start with a “hybrid” code for a specific part of their city. Typically, hybrids are standard zoning codes combined with graphic urban design standards. They usually do not address public space as comprehensively as a full form-based code, but they do allow for flexibility and choice. He reviewed the following two options for implementing a hybrid code: Adopt a complete and comprehensive form-based code for specific planning areas such as a neighborhood or district. The form-based code would reside in the structural and legal framework of a conventional code. This is consistent with what Edmonds is proposing for the Westgate and Five Corners areas. Make the form-based code framework the rule and conventional zoning the exception. This approach is effective for jurisdictions that want to move away from the conventional zoning approach. Mr. Wolfe cautioned that when developing hybrid zoning codes, it is important to keep in mind that public input is very important in determining the community’s objectives. The city should choose a workable regulatory approach, paying attention to the review process and staff requirements, as well as consistency with the comprehensive plan policies. It is important to involve a full range of community stakeholders in the process, and to make sure participants fully understand the implications of various options and alternatives. It is also very important to stay focused on the issues at hand. He noted there have been very few challenges to form-based codes around the country because they are so public-involvement oriented. Those who initially express discomfort from a legal standpoint usually end up supporting the concept if they are invited to participate in the process. Mr. Wolfe said it is important for staff to learn as much as possible about form-based codes before presenting the concept to the public as an option. They can do this by working with experienced professionals who understand how to integrate form- based codes into an existing system. The city should also be strategic about resources while maintaining a comprehensive view of the code development process. Educating and informing the staff who will be responsible for developing and enforcing the code is also important. Mr. Wolfe said he obtained much of his presentation materials from an article written by Bob Bengford, Makers Architecture, Planning and Urban Design, titled, “A Hybrid Approach to Form-Based Codes in the Northwest.” Mr. Wolfe pointed to the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, as an example of a jurisdiction that successfully implemented form- based zoning. Their existing code was piecemeal and had multiple conflicting zoning methodologies. The public blamed it for the high cost of development and for the failure of big projects and economic development opportunities. They hired a consultant to help them update their code, with special attention given to walkable, urban neighborhoods that are differentiated from suburban areas. Mr. Wolfe said it is safe to say that the procedural due process requirements would be easier to meet via a form-based code approach because there is so much more public involvement. Incentives are also helpful when implementing form-based codes. For example, some jurisdictions are offering a streamlined review process for projects that are consistent with zoning and design guidelines. He noted that some form-based codes appear in an optional or overlay capacity as a first step. Another option for implementing form-based codes is State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) planned actions, which allows for the environmental analysis to be done on a district-wide basis. Projects that are consistent with the planned action do not have to complete additional SEPA review. Development agreements can also set the stage for a form-based code, but they must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the overall development regulations. Mr. Wolfe concluded his presentation by providing a list of local communities that have or are working to implement a type of form-based code. He particularly noted the City of Bothell’s Downtown Revitalization Plan and regulations. Bothell began their community planning process for the Downtown Revitalization Plan in 2006, and they entered into a conceptual design phase in 2009 that included an extensive public outreach program. They eventually passed an ordinance obviating additional SEPA review for specific development projects determined to be consistent with the city’s adopted Downtown Packet Page 478 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 4 Revitalization Plan. The ordinance also allows projects that reflect the city’s vision to use a streamlined development process. Mr. Clifton pointed out that each of the PowerPoint presentations is available on the city’s website under “Planning Board Meetings and Agendas, June 27, 2012 Meeting.” They can also be accessed under “Development Services/Planning, Westgate and Five Corners Study Areas.” Mr. Clifton also reminded those present that although a form-based code approach is being considered for the Five Corners and Westgate Study areas, the presentations and subsequent discussion is intended to focus on the topic of form-based codes in general. The more specific draft Westgate form-based code will be presented to the Planning Board for review and a public hearing at a later date. PRESENTATION BY SHANE HOPE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Ms. Hope said that while each community is different, form-based zoning has worked well in the City of Mountlake Terrace. She explained that they approached their Town Center Vision in terms of what needed to be different. The visioning process included an extensive planning and community outreach program. The city conducted community roundtables, developer forums, design workshops and visual preference surveys to solicit input from the community and stakeholders. Through this process, it became clear that the community was very interested in revitalizing their downtown. The community indicated a desire for the downtown to be more walkable and provide community gathering places. The community also indicated a desire for attractive, mixed-use development. In order to avoid a “vertical effect” that prevents sun, the community determined that buildings should be stepped back. Street trees were also important to the community. Ms. Hope said the community recognized that the downtown area is large and not all areas are alike. They agreed it is important to recognize the differences amongst the building districts, but the Town Square area should be the focal point of the Town Center Subarea because it was better suited for a more intense development approach. The community stressed the need to protect residential neighborhoods. Those areas located close to residential zones were treated differently to provide an adequate transition. Ms. Hope advised that the City of Mountlake Terrace hired a consultant to help staff perform a Tipping Point Analysis to determine if what they were proposing for the Town Center Subarea would actually work. The proposed concepts were applied to a number of parcels to determine what it would take to make development reasonable from a financial point of view. She cautioned that while a city can have good ideas, they cannot be implemented if they are not financially feasible. Ms. Hope said much of the planning effort focused on the Town Square area (on 56th Avenue West near the Civic Center), which is the only superblock in the city. The community indicated their desire for connecting streets to break the area up into smaller blocks. They also expressed an interest in a public plaza area, with perhaps a water feature, that could become the focal point of the Town Square. The community provided specific input on how the streetscape, sidewalks, and landscaping should work together to provide a positive pedestrian experience. However, they recognized that there were various street types within the Town Center area. Ms. Hope reported that the Town Center Subarea Plan was adopted in February 2007, and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was completed in August 2007. The planned action designation was approved in September 2007, and form-based code and design standards were implemented in 2007 and 2008. The city council adopted impact fees, a transportation master plan, and a finance strategy in 2007, and amendments were made to the transportation improvement and the capital improvement plans in 2007, as well. The city is currently in the process of developing engineering standards for pedestrian areas. While they recognize that redevelopment will not happen all at once, she said they anticipates that the adopted Town Center Subarea Plan would eventually result in 1,416 more jobs, 197,300 square feet of additional retail space, 267,700 square feet of additional office space, 797 new housing units, and 1,621 more residents. Ms. Hope said that while the adopted Town Center Subarea Plan includes a purpose section, definitions and a short list of uses based on categories, the main focus is on building type and the dimensional requirements of the building and site. The plan also includes landscaping and open space requirements, and other specific regulations to provide additional guidance. The plan identifies eight different building types, and a table is provided to identify the specific dimensional requirements for each building type. The more intense building types are intended for the Town Square area, and the less intense building Packet Page 479 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 5 types are intended for those areas that are closer to residential zones. The building types are general rather than specific and are meant to acknowledge that different heights are appropriate based on location, and that glazing and window transparency is important to the community. Ms. Hope emphasized that design standards are an integral part of the Town Center Subarea Plan. They are not intended to be guidelines, but standards that each development must meet. They provide more specific guidance for site design to address such issues as pedestrian connections, vehicular parking relationships and driveway locations. They also provide specific guidance for building design to address pedestrian entries, wall and roof treatments, setbacks, build-to lines, etc. Sign design is also a component of the design standards. Ms. Hope said that while the city originally had a number of development proposals, the economic downturn caused most to fall through because financing was no longer available. However, development is starting to pick up, and the Arbor Village Project is currently under construction at the corner of 56th Avenue West and 236th Street Southwest. This mixed-use project will result in 123 residential units, with 10,500 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and two levels of underground parking. She said two assisted living projects have also been proposed and should break ground in 2013. One is located at 23008 – 56th Avenue West and is currently in the permit process. The project will consist of a four-story building, with 109 residential units and commercial space on the ground floor. Underground parking would be provided, as well. The second assisted living project is located at 5525 – 244th Street Southwest and will consist of 96 residential units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. Ms. Hope emphasized that implementing the Town Center Subarea Plan was not just about having the codes in place. It was also important for the city to work with public, private and non-profit agencies to define the vision further. For example, the City of Mountlake Terrace is currently working to reconstruct the main street area and provide connections to the transit centers. She concluded her presentation by advising that the City of Mountlake Terrace is considering the opportunity to apply a form-based code approach to other commercial and mixed-use zones, as well. PRESENTATION BY JOE TOVAR - FAICP Mr. Tovar advised that when the City of Shoreline was incorporated in 1995, improvements to Highway 99 were very important to the community. Because the highway is a central facet of Shoreline, a great deal of time, money and attention was spent developing the Aurora Corridor Project. He said he was directly involved in the project as Planning Director for Shoreline from 2005 through January 2012. He said the planning effort culminated with the Town Center Subarea Plan and code, which was approved in 2011. He explained that, throughout the process, Shoreline focused their planning and zoning efforts on the transportation corridor. Phase I of the Aurora Corridor Project was completed in 2005, and Phase II followed in 2011. Phase III will be completed this year to extend the improvements to the county line so that bus rapid transit (BRT) service can commence. Mr. Tovar said that, typically, people think of transit-oriented design as station areas with a concentration of residential units and commercial development. However, transit-oriented development in Shoreline means that all the areas along the corridor have access to public transportation. This is particularly important in Shoreline, which is developed with residential development on both sides of the corridor. He provided photographs of Highway 99 before and after the Aurora Corridor Project. He noted that safety was significantly improved on the corridor by providing sidewalks on both side. New light standards, landscaped medians, and BRT lanes were also added. The business access/ transit lanes along the corridor will accommodate BRT service starting next spring, with 10-minute headways during peak hours. Mr. Tovar said the new reality for the Aurora Corridor is multi-modal centers and nodes with opportunities for mixed-use development of various densities. Town Center has become the focal point, and the city has already redeveloped the area that used to be a collection of ramshackle wood-framed buildings on land leased from Seattle City Light into a grassy area that is adjacent to the Interurban Trail. Mr. Tovar provided a chart he prepared to identify the factors that led Shoreline to a hybrid form and character-based code for their Town Center Subarea Plan. He reviewed each factor as follows: Packet Page 480 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 6 The community was already familiar with the approach of discrete subarea plans and implementing codes, which is characteristic of a form-based code. Traditional Euclidean zoning calls for separating commercial and residential uses, which is appropriate in some cases. However, a mixture of uses is more practical in many situations such as along the Aurora Corridor. The Regional Business (RB) zoning that was previously in place was difficult to explain. It was not user friendly, and very few graphic illustrations were provided to clarify the zone’s intent. The new hybrid code is more user-friendly and contains approximately 50% text and 50% graphics. The previous RB zoning did not provide a good balance of certainty and flexibility, and the use categories and density caps were inflexible and confusing. The broad use categories listed the types of commercial uses that were outright permitted, permitted with a conditional use permit, and prohibited, and only the uses identified on the list were allowed. This resulted in a lack of predictability about what the outcome of an application would be. The new hybrid code provides flexible and broad use density categories. While specific standards are included in the plan, they are less prescriptive than a 100% form-based code. The previous RB zoning required a SEPA review for each development proposal, which is a lengthy step. The adopted plan streamlines the permit process by eliminating the SEPA review requirement for proposals that are deemed consistent with the approved planned action designation. The city’s goal was to improve walkability. Traditional zoning determined what took place on the property by using generic street frontage standards rather than “complete streets” improvements. The new hybrid code focuses on creating a public realm by orienting building form to the role of the serving street, and it also identifies the capital improvements needed to improve walkability. The cost of preparing a traditional code can reach six figures because it is necessary to hire a consultant. The cost of creating the hybrid code was closer to $20,000 because much of the work could be done in house by staff. It is important to consider the staff costs associated with administering the code, and traditional codes are often so complex that only the most experienced staff can answer questions that come up. Because the hybrid code relies heavily on graphics, it is more user-friendly and easier for staff to interpret. Mr. Tovar explained that while Shoreline was interested in moving towards a form-based code for the Town Center Subarea Plan, they were concerned the city would not have enough funding and staff time to administer the prescriptive nature of a true form-based code. However, they wanted a more graphic-oriented plan that contains numerous maps and tables that are easy to understand and do a better job of conveying exactly what the city wants. They elected to pursue a hybrid zoning approach for the Town Center Subarea Plan, which included elements of both form-based and traditional zoning. As a result, the use categories in the Town Center Subarea Plan are broader, and the plan is more flexible. A planned action designation was completed for the subarea, as well, so SEPA would not be required for development proposals that are consistent with the plan. Mr. Tovar advised that subarea plans are optional elements of the comprehensive plan, and because Shoreline had already adopted several (Aldercrest, Southeast Neighborhoods, Point Wells, North city), the City Council and Planning Commission was familiar with the concept. The Town Center Subarea Plan started with a visioning exercise to identify the various elements that are important to the community. The vision provided direction for the subarea plan and was required to be consistent with the goals and requirements of GMA. The next step was to create development regulations and outline a development permit process. He noted that all development permits are subject to administrative design review; no public hearing is required and there is no appeal process to the City Council. The development permit process is as streamlined as possible, and the balance between predictability and flexibility was solved by being as clear as possible in the standards contained in the subarea plan. Mr. Tovar pointed out that the Town Center Subarea Plan also provides direction to the capital budget. It identifies specific capital projects such as the Aurora Corridor, Interurban Trail, Heritage Park, and Midvale Avenue Projects. It also identifies programs and policies the community desires such as property tax exemptions and a Shoreline farmer’s market. Mr. Tovar announced that Shoreline’s Town Center Subarea Plan was recently awarded the 2012 Governor’s Smart Community Award. The city will use this recognition to market the subarea to private investors. Packet Page 481 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Tovar referred to various components in the Town Center Subarea Plan that address what is important to the community. He advised that the Shoreline community has a strong desire to encourage sustainable development, and the city adopted a Sustainability Element into their comprehensive plan two years before the Town Center Subarea Plan was created. The community also expressed a desire for increased density in areas served by transit, recognizing that this would reduce vehicle miles traveled and green house gas emissions would be less. In addition, the community placed an emphasis on protecting the red brick road, developing the interurban trail, and establishing a farmer’s market. Mr. Tovar briefly reviewed the contents of Shoreline’s Town Center Subarea Plan, reminded the Commission that it included a planned action designation, which means that no SEPA review would be required for projects that are deemed consistent with the plan. It also includes a threshold value to identify when development would require site improvements. The plan pays particularly attention to the relationship between buildings and streetfronts. In addition, the plan contains neighborhood protection standards to address neighborhood concerns about traffic circulation, overflow parking, setbacks, etc. He pointed out that although form-based codes have not been specifically called out in past code language, the community has been utilizing the concept for many years. He emphasized that the standards in the plan are requirements rather than guidelines, and the plan includes a provision for design departure if a developer wants to come up with a better solution. However, developers run the risk that their alternative proposal might not be approved. Mr. Tovar summarized that when creating a hybrid form and character-based code, it is important to: Regulate what matters most to the community and let the market decide the details of use, density, and timing. Provide a balance of certainty and flexibility that attracts developers and investors. Provide clear and graphic illustrations of key building and site requirements. Create “place” by coordinating design on private lots with design of the public realm. Mr. Tovar provided a map of the Town Center Subarea that identifies the three kinds of streets (boulevard, Greenlink and storefront). He noted that there are different standards for each type of street. He also shared a marketing piece that was prepared to help market the Town Center Subarea as an investment opportunity for new development and businesses. The marketing piece points out what the City of Shoreline has done to reduce the developers’ costs for improvement. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION Board Member Lovell requested a brief overview of the ownership situation in the Town Center Subarea of Mountlake Terrace. Ms. Hope said one of the challenges of redevelopment in the Town Center is that there are multiple property owners. The code addresses the size of lot required for development. In some cases, developers must consolidate lots in order to develop to the maximum allowed by the code. Ms. Hope said the City of Mountlake Terrace works with investors who are interested in developing in the Town Center Subarea, and they have also worked with property owners who want to consolidate properties. For example, the mixed-use project that is currently under construction was previously seven, small residential lots that were assembled by an individual developer. Board Member Lovell asked if Mountlake Terrace has done anything to encourage development within their Town Center Subarea. Ms. Hope explained that, in the beginning, the City of Mountlake Terrace did not have to do a lot to promote the Town Center Subarea, but that is no longer the case. The city has stayed in touch with a few developers that have a particular interest in the Town Center Subarea, and they have published a marketing brochure. In addition, the city’s executive director and planners attend large regional meetings of developers to talk about what is happening in Mountlake Terrace and how their projects might fit in. Commissioner Rubenkonig recognized that form-based codes primarily focus on urban areas. He asked if there has been any discussion about applying the concept to residential zones, as well. Mr. Wolfe said it is certainly possible to apply the form- based code concept to residential areas. For example, the concept could be applied in a historic area of a city to offset new variants of development that are inconsistent with the vernacular. This would be similar to the concept of “historic districts.” He emphasized that many elements of the form-based code concept have been utilized for a long time, and have probably even been used in single-family zones. However, some of the principles of form-based codes try to get away from use separation, which is not typically a popular concept in single-family residential areas. Ms. Hope acknowledged that form- based code is an option, but most jurisdictions do not utilize the concept in their single-family residential areas. Packet Page 482 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 8 Commissioner Rubenkonig also asked if comprehensive plan amendments would be necessary in order to implement a form- based code in Edmonds. Mr. Wolfe explained that GMA requires that local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans provide the basis for their development regulations. He said comprehensive plan amendments are often necessary to implement a form- based code. The extent of the amendments will depend on where a city is in its comprehensive plan. Part of the consideration for a city that is adopting a form-based code for the first time is to determine if it should fit in with the existing comprehensive plan policies or if it should be added as a separate subarea plan. Ms. Hope added that a city’s comprehensive plan should be the basis for all other plans and regulations related to land use, community, and livability. If a city chooses to adopt a subarea plan, it actually becomes part of the comprehensive plan. She advised that Mountlake Terrace did not need to make any changes to their comprehensive plan in order to adopt the Town Center Subarea Plan. The subarea plan and zoning code simply added a final level of detail that fit with the policies already in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Tovar pointed out that the term “plan” can mean different things to different people. It is important to recognize that a subarea plan is more of a regulation than a plan. It controls the use of the properties within the subarea with specificity. It is important to understand that what is built in the subarea depends not only on the regulations contained in the plan, but on capital and other programs that are implemented by the city to ensure the overall success of the subarea plan. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the city has policies within the existing comprehensive plan related to Westgate and Five Corners. They need to look at the existing policies and how they relate to what is already developed and what is called out in the proposed plan. Inconsistencies can be addressed by adding elements of form-based code into the comprehensive plan or by amending the zoning code. Commissioner Senderoff asked if it would be advantageous for cities to have more details in their comprehensive plan to provide guidance when drafting code language. Mr. Tovar explained that comprehensive plans are defined by GMA as “general planning documents.” He said there is a certain risk associated with providing more detail than required by GMA, in that a comprehensive plan can be interpreted to be a regulation rather than a guiding document. Comprehensive plans are intended to provide direction on what is important as far as values and concepts that should be embodied in the regulations. The regulations are not required to exactly mirror the comprehensive plan policies. He cautioned that comprehensive plans should not say more than is needed, but they should be clear about what a city wants their regulations to achieve. Mr. Wolfe agreed and added that if a comprehensive plan is too directive, a planning board’s hands could be tied and flexibility would be limited. He suggested it would be helpful for the city to obtain examples of the level of detail necessary to enable and be consistent with form-based codes. The comprehensive plan could contain policies for transit-oriented development, walkability, compact communities, etc., but it should not reach the level of prescriptive, parcel-by-parcel dictates. Mr. Tovar added that a comprehensive Plan is intended to identify a city’s aspirations, and a zoning code controls how individual parcels must be designed and how they can and cannot be used. Board Member Clarke asked if the Millcreek Town Center was redeveloped as part of an approved master plan or if it was implemented through a type of form-based zoning. Bill Trimm, former Millcreek Planning Director, answered that policies within the comprehensive plan called out the need for a master plan for the Mill Creek Town Center. The developer was required to present a master plan proposal to the city that was consistent with the policies called out in the comprehensive plan. Specific design guidelines were created to implement the master plan. Board Member Clarke said the various visions for building height create a challenge for redevelopment in the downtown bowl area. The current height limit allows for two and three-story buildings, compared to the Mountlake Terrace Town Center, which permits up to seven stories. On the other hand, most of the development in the Millcreek Town Center is single story. He asked what roll height limits and building mass would play in relationship to form-based zoning. He referenced a multi-family project that is currently being developed on Highway 99 that is unsightly, massive, and out of scale with the character of the area. He asked how a form-based zoning approach would control large buildings that are out of scale and character based on lot size. Mr. Tovar answered that a form-based code would regulate building bulk via step backs, floor area ratio, etc. He pointed out that the development referenced by Board Member Clarke, as well as the development that occurred previously at Echo Lake, were both vested under the previous Regional Business zoning. He emphasized that form-based codes are not a way to get taller buildings. Mr. Wolfe said developers desire predictability and flexibility to allow for changing market conditions and changes in the way people live. Form-based codes can allow both residential and commercial uses on the ground floor, depending on a Packet Page 483 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 9 community’s vision. He acknowledged that market based zoning is a dangerous term for some people, but the positive side of form-based zoning is that it allows for changes in the way people live, work and play. He advised that sometimes a very responsible developer will need a little more height to allow for sustainable infrastructure, and form-based codes can facilitate this by placing an emphasis on the number of stories rather than an absolute building height. Ms. Hope added that height is just one element of form-based zoning. The relationship between the street and the sidewalk and other details are also important elements. She noted that no new development was taking place in Mountlake Terrace based on their old traditional development code, which contained specific height limitations. Mr. Tovar said the City of Shoreline created rudimentary Sketch Up models to give a sense of what a building mass would look and feel like. He said this is a great tool, whether it is used for form-based or more conventional zoning, to model whether not the proposal is acceptable. He said this type of computer modeling is not costly and can give a better idea of the types of standards that should be required. Mr. Clifton said he hoped the city could get away from equating height to how attractive a building is. He said that when he served on the City of Seattle’s Design Review Board he saw one-story buildings that were just as unattractive as six-story buildings. What makes a building attractive is its roofline, embellishments, modulation, type of glass, etc. Aesthetics is not just about the height of a structure. Council Member Johnson asked the presenters to expand on the development agreement incentive as it relates to form-based codes. Mr. Wolfe said a development agreement can accomplish the same benefit as a planned action designation. A development agreement stipulates that a property must be developed in accordance with specific limitations and criteria that may be broader than the ordinary development regulations but still consistent with the comprehensive plan. Development agreements can be used as a tool to assure that an area is redeveloped in accordance with a negotiated community vision. Development agreements allow properties to be developed in phases. As long as development is consistent with the specific limitations and criteria contained in the agreement, a separate SEPA review would not be required for each component of the development. He summarized that development agreements can be incentive from not only a developer’s perspective, but they can be specific to a number of issues within the public realm. Commissioner Dewhirst asked Mr. Tovar and Ms. Hope to comment on the main concerns raised by citizens when the form- based code concept was initially introduced in their cities. Ms. Hope answered there was not a lot of opposition to the concept of form-based zoning, but an educational process was necessary to help the public understand how form-based codes could allow for things that are most important to the community. Mr. Tovar said the City of Shoreline did not approach the Town Center Subarea Plan as a form-based code. They knew that the City Council was familiar with the subarea process and was comfortable with the idea of creating unique zoning that is different than other parts of the city. However, staff was not confident that they would support the more prescriptive form-based code approach, and that is why they elected to propose a hybrid approach instead. He said there was no real opposition from the public, but the process included an extensive community outreach program to address public concerns and learn what the community wanted in this location. He summarized that the citizens in Shoreline were starved for things to be better after many years under King County’s rule. Board Member Lovell commented that there are a number of challenges facing future redevelopment of properties between the downtown bowl and the waterfront (i.e. Harbor Square and the Antique Mall). Some are related to the public’s desire for amenities and others are related to logistical and engineering challenges. He asked the presenters to provide input on how these challenges could be addressed as part of a development plan. He also asked Ms. Hope to share Mountlake Terrace’s strategy for funding the plaza that is proposed as part of their Town Square Plan. Ms. Hope answered that the City Council adopted impact fees that would be dedicated to the development of the plaza. When enough fees have been collected, the city will move forward with the public process, acquiring the property and developing the plaza. She explained that in addition to regulations, there are other important things that help key areas develop. This can include city-sponsored projects such as street or frontage improvements. The city is also seeking grant funding for public infrastructure projects, and developers are required to provide the frontage improvements spelled out in the code and pay their share of the impact fees. Commissioner Witenberg asked the presenters to talk about the similarities and differences between contract rezones and development agreements. Mr. Wolfe responded that a development agreement is a GMA term, and there are some parameters within GMA about what development agreements should include. A contract rezone is an old school tool that accomplishes similar results. Mr. Tovar agreed that contract rezones are similar to development agreements. However, Packet Page 484 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 10 contract rezones require developers and designers to do much of the work up front before making an application. Development agreement can be worked out at the conceptual level and community concerns can be addressed early in the process. He emphasized that development agreements can be major components of project approval since future development on the site would not require SEPA review if it is consistent with the overall scheme of the approved development agreement. Board Member Clarke observed that underground parking is not possible on the Harbor Square and Antique Mall properties because of the high water table. He questioned how a form-based zoning approach would provide flexibility to accommodate an above-grade parking structure given the current height limit. He said the community is struggling to understand the challenges of redeveloping these sites effectively and economically while keeping the height at 25 and 30 feet. Ms. Hope said that Mountlake Terrace has created different building districts that allow different things based on area. Another option is to identify certain exceptions and create a process for considering whether the exception should be allowed or not. Other communities face this same problem, which certainly complicates the matter. She noted that many jurisdictions do not require underground parking. Instead, they have regulations that prohibit parking lots that are visible from the main street. Mr. Wolfe added that a city may, through a community process, define a form of building that is appropriate with those issues in mind, but it must be fair and based on the urban ecology of the surroundings. While form-based codes cannot be used to address the permissibility of subsurface parking, they can address the relationship of the parking to the street. Mr. Tovar said that the City of Kirkland resolved this issue by creating a fee-in-lieu-of program that allowed applicants to pay into a fund that was used to construct a parking garage. Mr. Clifton thanked the presenters for giving their time to help the Edmonds community better understands the concept of form-based zoning. He also thanked the Planning Board, City Council, Economic Development Commission, and citizens for their attendance at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Packet Page 485 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Johnson pointed out that there are many different kinds of easements. She asked if the proposed amendment would apply to construction easements, too. Mr. Chave answered that the proposed amendment would apply to all easements associated with a street vacation. The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment for May 9th. Board Member Reed noted that the “; and” found at the end of ECDC 20.70.090.A.4 should be moved to the end of ECDC 20.70.090.A.5 to accommodate the new section ECDC 20.70.090.A.6. WESTGATE/FIVE CORNERS INTRODUCTION Jill Sterrett and Nancy Rottle were present to provide an overview of the Westgate planning document titled, “Revisioning Westgate.” Ms. Sterrett noted that many members of the Board participated in the fairly extensive public review process that was used to development the plan. The Board also met jointly with the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) to discuss the plan further. In addition, a series of teams worked on both the Westgate and Five Corners plans starting in the fall of 2010 with a team of undergraduate students; and a team of student interns, from a variety of disciplines, were hired in 2011to work on the project. She and Ms. Rottle assisted the student teams throughout the process. Ms. Rottle explained that Phase I (Research and Data Analysis) began in 2010 and included an on-line survey asking citizens of Edmonds what they liked and disliked about the Westgate and Five Corners Centers, a site survey of land uses and amenities, an analysis of available parking and how it is used, and an analysis of the physical conditions of the sites. Ms. Rottle reviewed that Phase 2 (Listening Session and Audience Response Surveys) involved a very extensive public process. After the initial citizen survey, two public listening sessions were held to find out what the public knew about the two areas. At the first session, citizens were invited to participate in an audience response survey to identify their preferences for future redevelopment in the two centers. Alternatives were presented at the second session, and participants were invited to identify their preferred elements from each one. Ms. Rottle said Phase 3 (Design Workshop and Draft Plans) started with a public design workshop with local professionals that was attended by approximately 60 people. The team reviewed what they had heard from the public and presented a draft site design to use as a baseline for moving the discussion forward. Using a unique process developed by a firm in Copenhagen, the group was divided into teams to talk about the types of activities they want to occur in the two centers and the public space and buildings that would be required to support the desired activities. She provided a diagram to illustrate the site design that was presented at the design workshop to illustrate the public comments received to date. She reported that they received interesting and good ideas from a mix of people, including citizens, trained planners and architects. Ms. Rottle reviewed that the public sentiment related to the Westgate Center was grouped into the following themes: Building Scale. People were most interested in a building scale of three to four-story buildings with a residential component. Public Space. Increasing public space was the most popular recommendation for improvement from all ages. Examples suggested were plazas, sitting space and green space. Walking/Biking. Many people were in favor of improving walkability by creating a safe environment for people of all ages. Traffic. There were no prominent issues with automobile traffic in the Westgate Center. Services. The community expressed a desire for better restaurants, street cafes, and perhaps a bakery. There was a desire for business fronts to be located at the sidewalk. Amenities. The public communicated a desire for additional amenities including landscaping on the sidewalk, street trees and the use of native plant species. Ms. Sterrett advised that during Phase 4 (Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative), the information gathered from the public was used to develop two potential alternatives, and people were asked to identify the elements from each plan that they liked best. These elements were combined into a preferred alternative. She provided a drawing depicting how development could occur over the next 20 years based on the proposed regulations. In the drawing, residential development would be located around the edges of the site. The PCC Natural Market would be maintained in its current parameters, as would the other newer existing development. While the plan would not require the older existing uses to be retained, it Packet Page 486 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 4 would not require them to be removed either. She also provided a drawing showing how the illustrative plan would focus on landscaping. The hillside areas would be preserved from redevelopment, and green open spaces would be emphasized. Easements would be provided for access from the commercial areas to the surrounding single-family properties. Ms. Sterrett provided an overview of what the illustrative plan would mean in terms of development. She said the existing development provides 235,163 square feet of retail, office, service and residential space. Under the illustrative plan, potential new development could result in as much as 504,400 square feet of commercial space, plus additional residential space. She noted that changes would likely be made to the illustrative plan as the process moves forward. Ms. Sterrett said the proposed plan is intended to serve as a conceptual plan and regulatory document that uses a form-based code approach. The plan’s number 1 goal is to create mixed use, walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community friendly. This is consistent with what they heard from the public throughout the process. Other goals of the plan include improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users, prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings, establishing a flexible regulating system to provide incentives for developers to do creative development, ensuring that the community gets quality development, and providing a variety of housing choices to residents of all economic and age segments. Ms. Sterrett and Ms. Rottle reviewed the regulating framework proposed in the draft plan, which calls out the following elements: Amenity Spaces and Green Feature Types. Amenity features are typically the kinds of spaces that people can use. The plan calls for landscape enhancement at the SR 104 and 9th Avenue/100th Avenue West intersection, a potential public park, linkages to surrounding areas and setbacks from SR 104. As currently proposed, an amenity space of 15% per lot would be required for amenities such as usable plazas, sidewalks, lawns, etc. This is similar to an open space requirement. The code would also require street trees, parking lot trees, and stormwater management. Required Building Lines. Rather than establishing a minimum street setback requirement, the new code language would identify how close a building must be placed to the right-of-way. As currently proposed, required building lines for SR 104 would be 8 feet from the right-of-way, and required building lines for 100th Avenue West would be 5 feet from the right-of-way. The required building line for the internal circulation drive would be 3 feet from the edge of the prescribed 9 to 12-foot edge treatment lining the drive. She explained that the internal circulation drive would be a private road that links the properties together. Street Types. As currently proposed, the streetscape standards for 100th Avenue West call for two travel lanes, with a center turn lane. Bike lanes would also be added on each side of the roadway. The sidewalks on both sides would be 7- feet wide. A bioswale would be located on the eastside of the street to treat stormwater. Additional street trees would be provided to enhance the pedestrian experience. The streetscape standards for SR 104 call for two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane with intermittent planted median. A bioswale would be located on the south side of the street. The sidewalk would be 5 to 8 feet in width on the north side and 5 feet wide on the south side. The internal circulation drive would be a shared street intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and provide pedestrian connectivity as an alternative to SR 104. The proposed streetscape standards for the internal roadway call for a shared travel lane, with a bicycle lane to help cyclists who want to access 100th Avenue West without going onto SR 104. Bollards, light standards, sidewalks and landscaping would be provided, as well. Building Types. Rather than regulating the specific development that can occur in the zone, the proposed plan establishes a set of potential building types: o Rowhouse – A series of townhome apartments or condominiums that are attached. o Courtyard Residential – Apartment or condominium flats that offer an internal courtyard and/or public space. o Live/Work – Development that provides living space in the same unit with retail uses on the ground floor. o Side Court – This type of residential development can be office only, retail mixed-use with office or residential above, or community service mixed use with office or residential above. Packet Page 487 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 5 o Commercial Block – These types of developments are primarily residential, but they can include retail only, office only, retail mixed-use with office or residential above, or community service mixed use with office or residential above. Ms. Sterrett summarized that the purpose of the plan is not to segregate uses, but to encourage a mixed-use environment. One of the features of the plan is the height bonus system, which was generated through discussions with the CEDC. The idea is to allow three-story heights throughout the entire area and four to five-story heights in some areas if a developer provides certain amenities. She referred to a map that illustrates the locations where four and five stories would be allowed if a developer meets the height bonus criteria. She also referred to the worksheet provided in the plan, which lists the height bonus criteria. She explained that there is a base level for each category (housing unit size, green building, green factor, amenity space, alternative transportation). Every development in the Westgate area must meet the prerequisite criteria outlined on the worksheet, and developers would receive credits for each additional criterion that is met. Four-story development in the selected area would require a total of 8 credits, and five-story development would require 12 credits. Ms. Rottle said the plan proposes a “Green Factor” overlay, which is based on the City of Seattle’s successful program for commercial and multi-family zones. As proposed, developers would be required, but in a very flexible way, to incorporate “green features” onto a site. The program offers a flexible system to address ecological and livability functions. A developer would need to achieve a minimum score (.30 per lot size) by implementing green elements. She referred to the score sheet provided in the plan for applicants to track their quantities. The score sheet would be submitted with a plan, and a professional would certify whether the plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements. She reviewed that applicants would receive points for soil depth in landscaped areas, tree canopy, shrubs and ground cover, green roofs, permeable paving, water features, green walls, drought tolerant/native plants, and features visible from public spaces. She encouraged Board Members to view the guidebook provided on the City of Seattle’s website to illustrate the different features that could be used to achieve the “Green Factor.” She also provided a diagram to illustrate how the program could be applied to a site. Ms. Sterrett briefly explained the proposed review process for the height bonus system. She advised that an administrative review would be required for all development that is one to three stories in height. Four-story development would require administrative review and the height bonus worksheet. Developments of five stories would require administrative review, the height bonus worksheet, and a design review. Design review may also be required for developments of less than five stories that trigger State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review or have major exceptions to the overall concept of the plan. Ms. Sterrett summarized that, over the next few months, the Planning Board would continue to work with staff and the consultants to review and refine the plan. Public meetings are scheduled to take place in the fall, with a City Council decision by year end. She referred the Board to the one-page document outlining the additions and corrections that have been made to the draft Revisioning Westgate Plan since January 4, 2012, as a result of continued discussions with the CEDC. Regarding Mr. Hertrich’s earlier comment, Ms. Sterrett emphasized that it is not the Plan’s intent to make Westgate solely pedestrian oriented. There is ample parking in the area for the level of development that has been proposed. Making the area walkable means that people living in surrounding neighborhoods could more easily access the center by walking. Improving the internal walkability of the area would also allow people to park somewhere on site and then walk from place to place without having to relocate their cars. She said the plan does not encourage people to walk across SR104, except at the intersection, but they want to make the area a pleasant place that is walkable once you arrive. As an example, she said people can drive to University Village, but then walk from shop to shop. It is now a vibrant commercial area. She said they heard a strong desire from the public that they wanted pleasant places to be outside and to socialize. They wanted community space as part of the retail experience. The proposed plan attempts to accommodate this sense of community, and walkability is part of the equation. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the presentation is just an introduction of the draft plan. The Board will have multiple meetings to discuss the details of the plan. Board Member Tibbott asked the consultants to describe the internal walkway concept. He observed that rather than one internal walkway, there would be four compartmentalized systems. Ms. Sterrett agreed there would be four internal walkway quadrants on the site. She said the goal is to make the corners at the core intersection safer and more pleasant. It would not be appropriate to encourage crossings in other locations on SR 104. Board Member Tibbott questioned the feasibility of the Packet Page 488 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 6 internal walkway system as proposed in the plan. He suggested that University Village is not really a good comparison. Ms. Sterrett clarified that the essence of University Village is what the plan is trying to achieve in terms of what the site has to offer. She pointed out that the north quadrants would be large enough to be fairly feasible, but not at the magnitude of University Village. The south quadrants are more linear and strip focused. Board Member Tibbott asked if the plan would provide adequate parking not only for the existing and new residential and commercial development, but also for people who will be driving to the site from other locations throughout the City. Ms. Sterrett explained that the parking requirement is based on square footage and the type of uses. Businesses located in the area would be required to provide enough parking for employees and customers to meet the City’s current parking standard. Residential development would also be required to meet the City’s current parking standard. Ms. Rottle added that the City’s parking standard also includes a requirement for street trees next to any parking lot to ensure walkability. Bringing buildings closer to the street with sidewalks in the front, would also create better walking conditions. Ms. Rottle asked if Board Member Tibbott is worried that there would not be enough encouragement in the plan for developers to create pedestrian walkways within the site. If so, she pointed out that the City’s parking standards would require walkways next to any parking lot. The plan also encourages the parking lots to be small and interspersed throughout the area. Board Member Tibbott observed that there is no on-street parking available in adjacent residential neighborhoods, so people would not be able to park outside of the Westgate area and walk to businesses. All of the parking to serve the area must be provided on site. Board Member Stewart observed that the plan assumes that people living in the residential units would use the internal pedestrian walkways to access the various services that are located in the area. She noted there is also fairly good bus access. This may allow the City to either reduce or eliminate the parking requirement for the residential uses in this mixed use area. Ms. Rottle agreed that the plan attempts to encourage young, creative people who want to walk and use public transportation rather than private vehicles. Board Member Reed asked if the study included in the Board’s packet is the complete study done by Property Counselors regarding the Economic Potential for the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Reed said his impression is that some of the survey data is related to both locations, and not just to Westgate. Ms. Sterrett explained that when citizens visited the website to respond to the survey questions, they were allowed to choose Westgate, Five Corners or both. The numbers represent the total number of people who participated in the survey, but the responses were segregated by the area each respondent chose. Ms. Rottle added that the public responses for each area were tracked separately throughout the public process. Board Member Reed recalled that three alternatives were presented to the ECDC, but one was quickly dropped. That left two alternatives, and the CEDC eventually chose the one that placed the buildings right up to the sidewalk with less open space. He expressed his belief that the other alternative seemed better suited to the area. He noted that this concern was also expressed in a recent memorandum from Council Member Petso. He asked how far back he would have to go to read the CEDC’s comments and discussions regarding the draft alternatives. Ms. Rottle said most of the CEDC’s discussion took place between January and June of 2011. Board Member Johnson added that, at the request of the CEDC, the team presented the draft plan to them in February of 2012. Ms. Rottle explained that the street setback standards identified in the proposed plan are consistent with the setbacks the City Council approved by interim ordinance last summer. The Board acknowledged Council Member Petso’s memorandum, which suggests that the survey responses related to the question of whether or not citizens want buildings closer to the street may be misleading. She noted that respondents were only given three choices, all of which had businesses fronting on the street. Respondents were not able to indicate their preference for buildings being set back further from the street, with landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Ms. Rottle emphasized that the survey was just one of many methods used to identify public preferences. In regard to Board Member Reed’s earlier comment, Ms. Rottle said that rather than simply selecting one preferred alternative, the CEDC created a hybridized version that contains elements from all three alternatives. The Board also acknowledged that they received a string of emails between staff and Council Member Petso regarding the setback issue that were written in 2011. Packet Page 489 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 7 Board Member Clarke asked the purpose of the report prepared by Property Counselors titled, “Economic Potential for Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers. He also asked how much the City paid for the report. Mr. Chave answered that an assessment of market feasibility for the concepts being discussed was part of the overall project. The report is not meant to be a market study, but a market reconnaissance to assess the general economic potential for the area and determine the types of uses that would be supported by the market and feasible for the private sector to develop. The report cost somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000. Board Member Clarke said he finds the study unprofessional. He suggested that it is ridiculous to compare Westgate’s parking needs to projects in the Pike-Pine Corridor, Belltown, Othello Station North, and the Sound Transit LINK light rail line in Seattle. He also expressed concern that the document is filled with statistics and information that could simply be downloaded from the internet. The document does not provide any economic conclusions of the potential of Westgate, and it is inaccurate to state that there has been no population growth over the last decade. He said he was disappointed that the study did not cite examples of any communities in the Greater Puget Sound area that have gone through a similar design process where the development has been successful and financially feasible. Board Member Clarke acknowledged that the Revisioning Westgate Plan is high-quality, but he is concerned about some of the basic premises. He questioned the feasibility of the proposed internal circulation drive given the current land ownership in the northeast corner of the intersection. He questioned if the owners of the PCC Natural Market would even allow the construction of a circulation driveway that would divide their building from the parking lot. Mr. Chave pointed out that there is already an internal circulation driveway on the site. Board Member Clarke agreed but said the property owners do not like it. Board Member Clarke questioned if the consultants or staff has talked with property owners in the Westgate commercial area. He questioned if the owners of the QFC store have been informed that they would be asked to give up their parking lot, replace the existing store with a larger store, and integrate with properties they do not own to create the massive density identified in the plan for the northeast corner of the commercial center. He said he supports creative plans, but he does not see how the proposed plan accomplishes this goal, given that the properties are under separate ownerships. He noted that one property in the area has remained vacant over the past five years even though it is fully entitled and has the required infrastructure. He stressed the need to tie the plan together with reality. Again, he asked for examples of where the concepts proposed in the draft plan have been successfully applied elsewhere in the Puget Sound area. He noted that University Village is different because the properties are under a single ownership, and there is no residential development. He questioned how the plan would motivate developers to assemble sites under a single ownership to build something of the massive size identified in the plan. He shared several examples of mixed-use development throughout the Puget Sound that remains vacant. Board Member Clarke said that structure parking would make redevelopment cost prohibitive, and the parking lot identified in the plan is not large enough to serve the PCC Natural Market, let alone the parking needs for the existing QFC store. He summarized that the plan looks nice, but he was unable to run the economic proforma on any of the buildings to determine if they are economically viable alternatives. He also noted that the financial study identified a land value of $25 to $30 per square foot, and it did not mention that Key Bank recently paid $100 per square foot for land. Ms. Sterrett said the consultants are well aware that the Westgate properties are under multiple ownerships, and most of the buildings shown in the plan respect the existing property lines. Some property owners may choose to combine because the proposed plan would allow for substantially greater height than what is currently allowed and redevelopment would become more economically viable. It would also allow developers to provide more public amenities such as internal circulation, public spaces, etc. She clarified that the study was intended solely to give a magnitude for the type of development and square footage the area would support, and it was completed prior to Key Bank’s land purchase. Ms. Rottle explained that the proposed plan is intended to be a flexible code. It was not necessarily meant to become an economic stimulus, but it could because it allows for additional height. A property developer would not be required to adhere to very many requirements, and it would be up to a developer to complete a market analysis to determine if his/her proposed project would pencil out before making an investment decision. The spirit of the plan is to allow flexibility over time. Ms. Rottle acknowledged that while there are quite a few examples of how form-based zoning has been applied successfully across the country, there are no local examples. However, at a public meeting, the Cascade Land Conservancy provided local Packet Page 490 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 8 examples of good development, as well as examples of how form-based zoning has been used successfully in other areas. In addition to what they heard from the public, these examples provided inspiration for them to move forward. Board Member Clarke said he participated in the first large commercial development that occurred in Mill Creek in the 1970’s. There is a significant difference between this early development and the more recent development of Mill Creek Town Center as far as parking and circulation. He noted that there is only one building greater than three stories in the entire Mill Creek Town Center development. This mixed-use building with condominium uses is located on the western part of the property and is removed from the commercial section. The rest of the development is one and two-story buildings. He said he does not foresee that massive mixed-use development will be successful in suburban markets. He observed that the Westgate commercial area is relatively small and much different than the University District where needed services are within walking distance. Board Member Clarke expressed his opinion that the proposed plan calls for too many residential units given the small size of the commercial center and the fact that much of the commercial space is occupied by two anchor stores. Ms. Rottle said they initially thought to reduce the amount of residential space, but the CEDC indicated otherwise. She suggested the Board should have a discussion with the CEDC regarding this issue. Chair Lovell referred to Page 11 of the proposed plan, which outlines the various building types. He also noted that additional details about the standards and requirements can be found starting on Page 28. He clarified that while the proposed language would allow for total build out of the intersection as commercial-mixed use, it would not require this type of intense development. Mr. Chave noted that while the market may not support high-intensity development at this time, it may at some point in the future. Implementing a form-based code would allow sufficient flexibility in zoning to accommodate changes if and when they occur. The City will be ahead of the game if they set zoning standards to accomplish what they want to achieve. Part of form-based codes is anticipating what might happen in the future and it is important to have a code that is flexible enough to accommodate desirable development without rezoning properties. Chair Lovell observed that a form-based code does not dictate occupancy or uses. Rather it dictates the form of what they want development to look like and how it relates to the public. Chair Lovell asked the consultants to share their thoughts on how well the proposed plan will be received by the public as it moves forward through the public hearing process. Ms. Rottle said she anticipates the plan will be well-received because they tried to incorporate public comments and concerns. However, she acknowledged that there will be some who express opposition to the plan because it includes concepts they do not support. She summarized that, generally, citizens favor more intense development at Westgate. Rather than focusing on what could be developed at Westgate, the public was more interested in making it a great commercial center that connects to adjacent communities and provides the needed social and service needs. Chair Lovell asked if the public will feel the plan offers what they asked for. Ms. Sterrett said she believes the plan offers the community what they asked for in terms of amenity spaces and greening of the site. However, she is not sure the public really understands the tradeoffs involved. There was much less concern about increasing building height at Westgate than at Five Corners because of the topography of the site. She said she anticipates some members of the public will express concern about building heights, and she suggested the Board respond by pointed out the need to provide legitimate tradeoffs to developers in exchange for added public amenities. Based on public testimony, the Board will have to decide if they are comfortable with the tradeoffs or if they should be scaled down. Chair Lovell noted that three options were provided in the plan for implementing form-based zoning. He asked if the consultants have a feel for what approach would work best for the City. Mr. Chave said it is too soon to make that recommendation, but he reminded the Board that making the zoning code more complex is not a good thing. They need to figure out a way to fit form-based code language into the City’s general scheme. Chair Lovell pointed out that the City has the option of applying form-based codes to just the Westgate area. Mr. Chave agreed but said he suspects that form-based zoning would make sense for other areas of the City that have potential for change over time such as neighborhood centers and portions of Highway 99. Chair Lovell said he believes the community would be less receptive to the idea of form-based zoning in the downtown and waterfront zones, and more receptive for its application in the neighborhood business zones such as Westgate and Five Corners. However, he expressed his belief that the concept could also work well for the downtown and waterfront zones. Mr. Chave said the consultants and staff are seeking feedback from the Board about whether form-based zoning would work better than traditional zoning in the Westgate area. The positive aspects of form-based zoning could be applied not only to Westgate, but to other commercial zones including those in the downtown. He explained that traditional Packet Page 491 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 9 zoning tells what a developer cannot do, and form-based zoning identifies what the City really wants to see. It allows for a lot more flexibility and choices for creative development. Mr. Chave cautioned that the “Green Factor” concept offers a different way of doing things. He said he is not sure it is a good idea to have more than one landscaping standard for the City. However, he agreed the concept is worth considering. If the City determines that it would make sense for Westgate, they could consider implementing the concept throughout the entire downtown, as well. Board Member Clarke referred to Item 3.2 on Page 13 of the proposed plan, which lists the allowable building types. He expressed his concern that, as currently written, it appears that single-story development would not be allowed in Westgate. Mr. Chave responded that the proposed language would not prohibit single-story development, but he agreed that this issue could be clarified. Ms. Sterrett suggested that another category could be added specifically to address single-story development. Ms. Rottle added that public comments indicated little support for single-story structures because they are not a good use of precious land, and the proposed plan responds to these comments by offering development types that are two more stories to allow more intense uses that generally equate to more public spaces. Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, said he participated in the majority of the CEDC discussions regarding the Westgate commercial area. He did not hear anyone say they were in favor of precluding single- story buildings. He agreed with Mr. Chave that language could be added to make it clear that single-story buildings would be allowed. Board Member Clarke suggested that perhaps the reason the public did not offer support for single-story development was because it was not one of the options offered to them. He pointed out that Key Bank just spent $2 million to purchase land for a single-story building on a prime corner, and most of the recent development in Westgate has been one and two-story buildings. This tells him the market still supports this type of development. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the current code limits height in the Westgate area to 25 and 30 feet, which precludes development greater than two stories in most situations. He suggested that if a form-based code had been in effect, some of the recent development may have been different. Board Member Clarke said he is in favor of expanding development opportunities, but they should also not preclude opportunities for single-story, single-occupancy development. Mr. Clifton reported that when staff met with the developers of the new Walgreens prior to their submittal, they showed them the draft form-based code language. Staff explained that if the City Council adopts the proposed form-based code, future developers would have to site their buildings to accommodate the internal circulation roadway. Although staff made it clear the plan has not been adopted and the City cannot require them to accommodate the roadway, Walgreens chose to work with the PCC Natural Market to construct a two-way drive isle along the internal circulation road. The roadway east of the pet store is currently only one way, and this property owner is also working with Walgreens to create a two-way drive isle. Mr. Chave commented that internal circulation is far superior to requiring people to enter each building site separately. Internal circulation allows people to access all businesses located on the site without having to reenter the main highway. Board Member Clarke said it will be interesting to hear how property owners like the internal circulation roadway once numerous businesses are connected and there is significant congestion. He said he would like examples of how the concept has been used in other commercial developments. Board Member Johnson said she understands that both Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace have adopted form-based codes in some form. She requested that staff provide examples from cities in the area that have successfully implemented the concept. Mr. Clifton reported that Joe Tovar, former Shoreline Community Development Director, reviewed the proposed Westgate plan, and he suggested the Board invite him to a future meeting to discuss the concept further and address the Board’s questions and concerns. He also suggested that they invite Shane Hope, Mountlake Terrace Community and Economic Development Director, to share his thoughts with the Board. Mr. Chave said Mr. Wolfe has also provided guidance to the City Attorney regarding the concept of form-based zoning. He could also be invited to meet with the Board. The Board agreed that would be helpful, but they suggested the presentations be made at a joint meeting with the City Council, Planning Board and CEDC. It was emphasized that the presentations would be open to the public to attend, as well. Board Member Johnson noted that the streetscape standards proposed for SR 104 do not include bike lanes. She said she is interested in considering the potential for adding bike lanes on SR 104 to be consistent with the City’s adopted Street standards and to be consistent with the City Council’s recently adopted Complete Streets Ordinance. She explained that to Packet Page 492 of 787 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 10 better understand and evaluate whether bike lanes are viable, the Board needs more information about the SR 104 corridor, in particular the right-of-way width available to accommodate bike lanes and the proposed streetscape design. Ms. Sterrett advised that an earlier version of the plan included a shared sidewalk/bike lane so that bikers were separated from the heavy traffic. However, the Public Works Department indicated that the proposal would not meet bike lane requirements. She agreed it would be appropriate to consider the option again, but the discussions must involve a representative from the Public Works Department. There may also be additional restrictions because the roadway is a state highway. Board Member Stewart said SR 104 is a precarious place to bike at this time, and she supports the internal circulation roadway, which will allow bikers to avoid the main intersection at SR 104 and 100th Avenue. Board Member Clarke asked if the proposed plan would require the utilities to be placed underground. He noted that the existing poles on the south side of SR 104 east of 100th Avenue may interfere with development if buildings are placed next to the sidewalk. The Board acknowledged that requiring underground utilities would be costly and beyond the scope of the proposed plan. Chair Lovell thanked the consultants and their team, as well as staff, for their hard work preparing the draft plain. The plan is exciting and he hopes they can continue to have public support. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING AT 9:20 P.M. FOR A BREAK. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M. DISCUSS AND REVISE PROPOSED DRAFT BED AND BREAKFAST (B&B CODE LANGUAGE (FILE NUMBER AMD20120001) Mr. Clugston reviewed that on March 28th the Board discussed and agreed that the City needs to have specific criteria and standards for B&Bs to clarify what is in the existing code and make it more user friendly. At the direction of the Board, staff reviewed regulations from surrounding communities and created draft B&B code language (Attachment 2) for the Board’s consideration. He said staff found it was difficult to incorporate B&B code language into the existing Home Occupation Chapter. Therefore, they are recommending a new section 20.23 be added. He advised that the proposed text provides a suggested definition for “Bed and Breakfast,” as well as ten development standards that all B&Bs should meet. He explained that while all B&Bs should have to obtain a business license to ensure appropriate review, staff is proposing a variable permitting scheme depending on where the B&B is located and how many rental rooms are proposed so that the appropriate level of review is provided for. B&Bs with two rental bedrooms or less would be permitted secondary uses in all residential zones, and B&Bs with three or more rental rooms would require a conditional use permit. B&Bs containing any number of rooms would be permitted primary uses in all business and commercial zones as long as all the development standards in ECDC 20.23.040 are met. The Board and staff reviewed the proposed development standards that would apply to all B&B establishments as follows: A. Bed and breakfasts must meet all applicable health, fire and building codes. B. Bed and breakfasts may only be located in detached, single-family homes. Mr. Clugston pointed out that a B&B is not intended to be a boarding house or motel. Board Member Clarke questioned the need to limit B&Bs to traditional single-family residential development only. Board Member Johnson commented that she lived in “The Park” apartment complex in Bellevue that rents some units on a daily basis, as “executive suites,” which is somewhat similar to a B&B. She noted that, in this case, each unit had a separate entrance. Board Member Stewart pointed out that, in many cases, multi-family development has shared access and common areas. It may not be appropriate to allow B&Bs in these types of situations since they could infringe upon the privacy of other tenants/owners. Chair Lovell pointed out that in the sample code language from other jurisdictions, many limit B&Bs to single-family, detached residential units. He suggested that the City follow this pattern rather than expanding the flexibility to include multi-family development, as well. Board Member Stewart agreed that they should keep the standards simple and go with what is currently proposed. The standards could always be expanded to include other types of development if deemed appropriate in the future. The remainder of the Board concurred. Packet Page 493 of 787 WESTGATE / 5 CORNERS INTRODUCTION Edmonds Planning Division Packet Page 494 of 787 Why Westgate / 5 Corners? Comprehensive Plan | Sustainability Economic | Social | Environmental Economic Development Jobs; Business & Employment; City revenue Social Interaction & Opportunity Housing choices; interactive and creative environment; ‘place making’ Environment & Climate Change Packet Page 495 of 787 Economic Changing markets and suburban development/redevelopment patterns Changing demographics and desires for choices in housing, shopping, jobs & living environments Local examples: Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Bothell… These also benefit City revenues & services Packet Page 496 of 787 Social Urban Land Institute: “Place Making” – “Form-based codes focus on end results – the creation of desirable physical places.” “Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places – places where people of all ages and background can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way.” “We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future… Residents and office workers are a sort of captive audience….” Packet Page 497 of 787 Environmental Focusing development in mixed use centers provides the opportunity for land-efficient development, reducing sprawl and achieving other growth management goals Land use is one of the few options available to local jurisdictions to address climate change… both in terms of mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation Packet Page 498 of 787 Why Form-Based Codes vs. ‘Traditional’ Coding? Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. Form-based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. Form-based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space’s users and fostering a unique local character. Packet Page 499 of 787 Form-Based code elements •Form-based coding can be designed according to context. •Form-based codes can be better suited to modern mixed-use development patterns and ‘place making’. Packet Page 500 of 787 Key form-based elements Regulating plan… map showing where different form standards apply Building forms and standards Public space specifications & relationships Definitions, Administration & process Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards Can be a ‘hybrid’ approach that incorporates traditional zoning standards where appropriate Packet Page 501 of 787 Next… Two members of the UW project team for Westgate & 5 Corners: Jill Sterrett, FAICP, Sterrett Consulting (UW) Julie Kriegh, AIA, LEED AP, Kriegh Architecture Studios Packet Page 502 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e We s t g a t e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n an d F o r m B a s e d C o d e Ci t y C o u n c i l P r e s e n t a t i o n Ju l y 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Gr e e n F u t u r e s L a b , Un i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n Ca s c a d e L a n d C o n s e r v a n c y Packet Page 503 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ag e n d a I N T R O D U C T I O N : J i l l S t e r r e t t PU B L I C P R O C E S S : J i l l S t e r r e t t ED M O N D S F O R M B A S E D C O D E : J u l i e K r i e g h NE X T S T E P S : J i l l S t e r r e t t Packet Page 504 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ma p O v e r v i e w Packet Page 505 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wh y u s e a F o r m B a s e d C o d e ? Re c o n n e c t i n g b u i l d i n g s , s t r e e t s , a n d o p e n s p a c e s Tr a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g c o d e s regulate an d e m p h a s i z e t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f us e s . De s i g n g u i d e l i n e s m o d u l a t e bu i l d i n g f a c a d e s a n d m a t e r i a l s . Fo r m - b a s e d c o d e s em p h a s i z e t h e re l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p u b l i c a n d pr i v a t e s p a c e t o s u p p o r t u s e r s a n d f o s t e r l o c a l c h a r a c t e r . Packet Page 506 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Re s e a r c h a n d a c t i v i t i e s b e f o r e d e s i g n s t a r t s : • CO M P A C T • CO N N E C T E D • CO M P L E T E Ex e m p l a r y C o m m e r c i a l C e n t e r s Packet Page 507 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Be f o r e D e s i g n S t a r t e d • Pr e p a r e d c i t i z e n s u r v e y • Si t e s u r v e y s o f l a n d u s e s • Su r v e y o f e x i s t i n g a m e n i t i e s • Pa r k i n g c o u n t s • Wa l k i n g d i s t a n c e & c o n d i t i o n s • Ma p p i n g s t u d y r e s u l t s • An a l y s i s o f u s e r f r i e n d l i n e s s • Ne i g h b o r h o o d I d e n t i t y Co m p a r i s o n Packet Page 508 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e We s t g a t e : M a r k e t A n a l y s i s We s t g a t e Cu r r e n t We s t g a t e Fu t u r e Sq . F t Cu r r e n t Re t a i l t y p e Ne i g h b o r h o o d Re t a i l Co m m u n i t y Re t a i l 29 . 9 7 a c . 23 5 , 1 6 3 s q . f t . An c h o r s Su p e r m a r k e t s Dr u g s t o r e S a m e 1 6 5 , 8 0 4 Ot h e r r e t a i l & S e r v i c e Co f f e e s h o p , bo w l i n g a l l e y Re s t a u r a n t s , ga r d e n s h o p el e c t r o n i c s 34 , 8 4 4 Of f i c e mi n o r R e a l e s t a t e in s u r a n c e 28 , 6 3 4 Re s i d e n t i a l mi n o r A p a r t m e n t s 5 , 8 8 1 Ti m i n g 5- 1 5 y e a r s Packet Page 509 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pa r t i c i p a t o r y P u b l i c P r o c e s s Br o w n U n i v e r s i t y • Co m m u n i t y S u r v e y b y Ma i l & O n - l i n e [O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 – M a r c h 2 0 1 1 ] • Li s t e n i n g S e s s i o n s [ J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ] • De s i g n W o r k s h o p [M a r c h 2 0 1 1 ] • Al t e r n a t i v e s P r e f e r e n c e s Fo r u m [M a y 2 0 1 1 ] Packet Page 510 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Co m m u n i t y S u r v e y s 1. M a i l - i n s u r v e y 2. O n - l i n e s u r v e y a t C i t y w e b s i t e 3. I n - p e r s o n s u r v e y a t P u b l i c L i s t e n i n g S e s s i o n Ag e s < 2 4 (9 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 2 5 – 4 4 (1 0 2 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 4 5 - 6 4 (1 2 8 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 6 5 + (8 1 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 9 7 % Ba k e r y 5 6 % Mo v i e T h e a t r e 4 4 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 5 4 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 3 5 % Mo r e p u b l i c u s e s ( l i b r a r y ) 3 0 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 5 4 % Ba k e r y 2 9 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 2 9 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 4 6 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 3 5 % Ba k e r y 3 3 % Packet Page 511 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu b l i c L i s t e n i n g S e s s i o n s Ch a n g e – Ho w m u c h ? H o w f a s t ? Wo n ’ t t h i n g s j u s t g e t w o r s e ? Ch a n g e w i l l b e gr a d u a l o v e r t h e n e x t 1 0 y e a r s . Tr a f f i c –Wo n ’ t m o r e d e v e l o p m e n t b r i n g m o r e tr a f f i c ? Wa l k a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t c a n h e l p t o of f s e t t r a f f i c i n c r e a s e s . Fa v o r i t e s –I d o n ’ t w a n t t o l o s e m y f a v o r i t e re s t a u r a n t , f i t n e s s c l u b , e t c . Pr o p e r t y o w n e r s w i l l li k e l y w a n t t o k e e p t h e m o s t s u c c e s s f u l bu s i n e s s e s . Li s t e n i n g - De v e l o p e r s d o w h a t t h e y w a n t an y w a y – h o w c a n w e h a v e a s a y ? The plan offers bo n u s i n c e n t i v e s t o p r o v i d e t h e a m e n i t i e s t h e pu b l i c i s a s k i n g f o r . Packet Page 512 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Th o u g h t f u l d e s i g n c a n ma k e c h a n g e f o r t h e b e t t e r Packet Page 513 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a design wo r k s h o p w i t h l o c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Id e n t i f y c o m m u n i t y v a l u e s . De s i g n f o r li f e (ac t i v i t i e s ) t o de t e r m i n e t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f spaces , an d f i n a l l y , t h e p l a c e m e n t o f bu i l d i n g s . In c o r p o r a t e a " g r e e n in f r a s t r u c t u r e " o v e r l a y . Pu b l i c D e s i g n W o r k s h o p Packet Page 514 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wo r k s h o p S u m m a r i e s We s t g a t e r e f l e c t s i t s i d e n t i t y a s a p e d e s t r i a n f r i e n d l y g a t e w a y Packet Page 515 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Al t e r n a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e s F o r u m Re f i n i n g a n d S e l e c t i n g f r o m A l t e r n a t i v e s 1- 3 s t o r i e s a l l o w e d w i t h re q u i r e d a m e n i t i e s 4- s t o r i e s a l l o w e d w i t h m o r e am e n i t i e s 5- s t o r i e s a l l o w e d o n s o m e si t e s n e a r s t e e p s l o p e s Packet Page 516 of 787 Ju l i e K r i e g h We s t g a t e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n an d F o r m B a s e d C o d e Packet Page 517 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Co n t e n t s o f t h e P l a n a n d F o r m B a s e d C o d e : 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 2. T h e R e g u l a t i n g F r a m e w o r k 3. B u i l d i n g T y p e s a n d S t a n d a r d s 4. C i v i c I n v e s t m e n t : S t r e e t s c a p e a n d P u b l i c S p a c e S t a n d a r d s 5. P r i v a t e I n v e s t m e n t : A m e n i t y S p a c e s a n d G r e e n F e a t u r e s St a n d a r d s 6. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t a n d a r d s 7. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Packet Page 518 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e An e x a m p l e o f p o s s i b l e d e v e l o p m e n t - Ke y : R e t a i l / C o m m e r c i a l - O r a n g e Of f i c e – P u r p l e Re s i d e n t i a l – Y e l l o w Pa r k i n g - o p e n l o t s , u n d e r b u i l d i n g s , o n t h e s t r e e t s Packet Page 519 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Key: Re t a i l / C o m m e r c i a l - O r a n g e Office – P u r p l e Re s i d e n t i a l – Y e l l o w Wh a t c a n t h e p l a n y i e l d ? Packet Page 520 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e • Cr e a t e m i x e d - u s e w a l k a b l e , c o m p a c t , c o m m e r c i a l c e n t e r s • En h a n c e E d m o n d s e c o n o m y a n d t a x b a s e • Im p r o v e c o n n e c t i o n s f o r b i c y c l i s t s & p e d e s t r i a n s • Wi t h i n t h e a r e a a n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e c i t y In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s Packet Page 521 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • En h a n c e W e s t g a t e i d e n t i t y a n d v i s i b i l i t y • Cr e a t i n g p l a c e s f o r p u b l i c a r t • Pr i o r i t i z e a m e n i t y s p a c e s • Cr e a t i n g p l e a s a n t p l a c e s f o r p e o p l e t o m e e t Packet Page 522 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • Pr o m o t e c i v i c a n d p r i v a t e i n v e s t m e n t s • Pa r t n e r t o c r e a t e p l a c e s t o e n h a n c e t h e c i t y a n d t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d • In c o r p o r a t e s u s t a i n a b l e f e a t u r e s • Em p h a s i z e gr e e n b u i l d i n g co n s t r u c t i o n , st o r m w a t e r in f i l t r a t i o n , low-impact si t e d e s i g n Packet Page 523 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • Re g u l a t e b u i l d i n g p l a c e m e n t a n d f o r m • Es t a b l i s h a f l e x i b l e r e g u l a t i n g s y s t e m t o e n c o u r a g e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d pr o v i d e a m e n i t i e s • Cr e a t e v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g c h o i c e s a n d r e t a i l o p t i o n s a n d p a r k i n g o p t i o n s • Se r v e n e e d s o f m a n y e c o n o m i c a n d a g e s e g m e n t s Packet Page 524 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wh a t i s r e g u l a t e d b y t h e P l a n ? 1. A m e n i t y S p a c e s 2. R e q u i r e d B u i l d i n g L i n e s 3 . S t r e e t T y p e s 4. B u i l d i n g T y p e s 5. B u i l d i n g F r o n t a g e T y p e s 6. S u s t a i n a b l e a n d G r e e n F e a t u r e s 7. D e v e l o p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d O p t i o n s WE S T G A T E : T h e R e g u l a t i n g F r a m e w o r k Packet Page 525 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 1. A m e n i t y S p a c e s • Co m m o n A r e a s : La n d s c a p e e n h a n c e m e n t at i n t e r s e c t i o n , p a r k ; s t r e e t se t b a c k s • “A m e n i t y S p a c e ” : pl a z a s , s i d e w a l k s , l a w n s , po c k e t p a r k s • Tr e e s : st r e e t t r e e s , pa r k i n g l o t s & s t e e p s l o p e s • St o r m w a t e r ma n a g e m e n t : l a n d s c a p e f e a t u r e s Packet Page 526 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 2. R e q u i r e d B u i l d - t o L i n e s SR 1 0 4 – b u i l d t o 8 f t . f r o m r i g h t o f w a y 10 0 th Av e W – b u i l d t o 5 f t . f r o m r i g h t o f w a y I n t e r n a l R o a d – b u i l d t o 3 f t . f r o m e d g e Packet Page 527 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 3. S t r e e t s c a p e S t a n d a r d s In t e r n a l C i r c u l a t i o n Dr i v e St a t e R o u t e 1 0 4 Packet Page 528 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 1. R o w h o u s e - To w n h o m e a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s 2. L i v e W o r k - To w n h o m e a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s w i t h w o r k s t u d i o 3. S t a c k e d D w e l l i n g s - Si n g l e l e v e l l i v i n g a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s 4. L o f t D w e l l i n g s - t w o l e v e l l i v i n g u n i t s w i t h r e t a i l o n t h e g r o u n d l e v e l 5. C o u r t y a r d R e s i d e n t i a l - Ap a r t m e n t o r c o n d o m i n i u m f l a t s 6. S i d e C o u r t - Re t a i l M i x e d U s e w i t h o f f i c e o r r e s i d e n t i a l a b o v e 7. C o m m e r c i a l B l o c k - O f f i c e , R e t a i l , M i x e d U s e w i t h o f f i c e o r r e s i d e n t i a l a b o v e 4. B u i l d i n g T y p e s Packet Page 529 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 4. R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g T y p e s W e s t g a t e Li v e / W o r k Ro w h o u s e s Co u r t y a r d R e s i d e n t i a l Packet Page 530 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 4. C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g T y p e s Si d e C o u r t Co m m e r c i a l B l o c k Su s t a i n a b l e S t a n d a r d s M e n u • L E E D • E v e r g r e e n • B u i l t G r e e n • P a s s i v e H o u s e • L i v i n g B u i l d i n g C h a l l e n g e Packet Page 531 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 5. S t r e e t F r o n t a g e T y p e s : De f i n e h o w b u i l d i n g s m e e t t h e s t r e e t Packet Page 532 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 6. G r e e n F e a t u r e s : We s t g a t e G r e e n F a c t o r 1. B a s e d o n su c c e s s f u l S e a t t l e Gr e e n F a c t o r fo r C o m m e r c i a l an d M u l t i - F a m i l y Z o n e s 1. F l e x i b l e s y s t e m t o a d d r e s s ec o l o g i c a l a n d l i v a b i l i t y fu n c t i o n s 1. D e v e l o p e r s e l e c t s o p t i o n s t o ga i n b o n u s s t o r i e s Packet Page 533 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 6. G r e e n F e a t u r e s E x a m p l e In s e r t i n f o – p o s s i b l y t h e s t e p b y s t e p s u m m a r y & l i s t o f i t e m s i n t h e Gr e e n F a c t o r C a t e g o r i e s ( e n d o f s e c t i o n 5 . 2 ) - N a n c y t o p r o v i d e Packet Page 534 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 7. D e v e l o p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s & O p t i o n s Me n u of Op t i o n s C o n s i s t e n t R e v i e w P r o c e s s Packet Page 535 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu t t i n g i t a l l t o g e t h e r Packet Page 536 of 787 Ji l l S t e r r e t t Co n c l u s i o n Packet Page 537 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n & I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Packet Page 538 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ci t y a c t i o n s t o e n c o u r a g e d e v e l o p m e n t 1. C r e a t e a d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t t h r o u g h R F Q p r o c e s s 2. C r e a t e p u b l i c a r t , t e m p o r a r y s p a c e a c t i v a t i o n 3. A l l o w c o m m u n i t y a n d n o n - p r o f i t u s e s f o r e x i s t i n g v a c a n t b u i l d i n g s 4. C i t y p a r t n e r s h i p i n a m e n i t i e s , o p e n s p a c e , a n d p a r k i n g t h a t a r e l e v e r a g e d wi t h g r e e n s t o r m w a t e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 5. C r e a t e P l a n n e d A c t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t 6. P u b l i c i z e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n - • Hi g h l i g h t F B C • Sh o w d e v e l o p a b l e p a r c e l s • Id e n t i f y c a p a c i t y o f u t i l i t i e s • Fe a t u r e d e s i r e d a c t i v i t i e s • D e m o n s t r a t e h o u s i n g d e m a n d Packet Page 539 of 787 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Th a n k Y o u • Ji l l S t e r r e t t , F A I C P St e r r e t t C o n s u l t i n g UW F a c u l t y , U r b a n D e s i g n & P l a n n i n g • Ju l i e K r i e g h , A I A , L E E D A P KR I E G H A R C H I T E C T U R E ST U D I O S Un i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n T e a m • Na n c y R o t t l e , A S L A - D i r e c t o r , G r e e n F u t u r e s L a b • UW F a c u l t y , L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Be t s y J a c o b s o n - M A K E R S A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Ma s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e / U r b a n D e s i g n & P l a n n i n g • Je a n i n e M a t t h e w s - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Br a d S h i p l e y - B S D e g r e e i n C o m m u n i t y , E n v i r o n m e n t a n d P l a n n i n g • To m J a m i e s o n - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Er i c S c h a r n h o r s t - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e Packet Page 540 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 8 Councilmember Bloom explained she proposed the amendment because the EDBID President already has the option of calling an emergency meeting. She did not believe the EDBID President should have more power to call an emergency meeting than the Mayor has. By striking this language, the BID already has that option in the event a natural disaster necessitated an emergency meeting. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Council could give an organization such as the EDBID more power than is allowed by RCW. Mr. Taraday answered no. He did not read 9.2.g to be an expansion of power; it was essentially paraphrasing State law. Council President Petso asked if State law includes the requirement that an effort must be made to meet all requirements if possible. Mr. Taraday answered it did not; State law states the notice requirements of the chapter shall be suspended; if anything 9.2.g is not as lenient as State law. If 9.2.g were eliminated, efforts to meet all requirements would not need to be made. Council President Petso summarized 9.2.g provided better notice of an emergency meeting than State law. Mr. Taraday agreed 9.2.g required more. Councilmember Bloom asked if Section 9.2.g would allow the President to call a meeting in the event of a nature disaster such as the RCW describes. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW does not expressly state that an emergency must be a natural disaster; the language states fire, flood, earthquake or other emergency. His reading of “emergency” in Section 9.2.g was an emergency of the same type; it could not just be an emergency due to timing. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Section 9.2.g left it open for another type of emergency that was not contemplated in the RCWs. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW leaves open the possibility of other types of emergency. The City Council has similar discretion to determine when an emergency exists. The EDBID will also have that type of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, either by Section 9.2.g or RCWs unless the Council expressly removes it, which he did not recommend. He concluded it is not possible or advisable to define with precision what constitutes an emergency. Councilmember Johnson asked if inserting “consistent with RCW 42.30.070” into Section 9.2.g would provide clarification. Mr. Taraday replied if there was a concern that the EDBID Board could define emergency in a manner that was inconsistent with State law, reference to the RCW could be added to 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD, “CONSISTENT WITH RCW 42.30.070” TO SECTION 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #3 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Buckshnis discontinued her participation in the Council meeting by telephone.) 8. RE-INTRODUCTION OF WESTGATE / 5 CORNERS Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave introduced the topic and explained the reasons for the Westgate and 5 Corners Plans include: • Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Sustainability elements • Economic Development Packet Page 541 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 9 o Jobs; Business & Employment; City revenue • Social Interaction & Opportunity o Housing choices; interactive and creative environment; ‘place making’ • Environment & Climate Change Mr. Chave described economic issues: • Changing markets and suburban development/redevelopment patterns • Changing demographics and desires for choices in housing, shopping, jobs & living environments • Local examples: Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Bothell… • These also benefit City revenues & services Mr. Chave described social benefits: • Urban Land Institute: o “Place Making” – “Form-based codes focus on end results – the creation of desirable physical places.” o “Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places – places where people of all ages and background can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way.” o “We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future… Residents and office workers are a sort of captive audience….” Mr. Chave described issues related to the environment: • Focusing development in mixed use centers provides the opportunity for land-efficient development, reducing sprawl and achieving other growth management goals • Land use is one of the few options available to local jurisdictions to address climate change… both in terms of mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation To the question of why form-based codes versus traditional coding, Mr. Chave explained: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. • Form-based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. • Form-based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space’s users and fostering a unique local character. Mr. Chave highlighted form-based code elements: • Form-based coding can be designed according to context. • Form-based codes can be better suited to modern mixed-use development patterns and ‘place making’. • Regulating plan… map showing where different form standards apply • Building forms and standards • Public space specifications & relationships • Definitions, Administration & process • Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements • May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards • Can be a ‘hybrid’ approach that incorporates traditional zoning standards where appropriate Jill Sterrett, FAICP, Sterrett Consulting, UW Faculty, explained although the study conducted in 2010-2011 also addressed 5 Corners, the Westgate Plan has moved forward. Due to the delay to allow the Packet Page 542 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 10 Planning Board to address other issues and because there are new Councilmembers, her intent was to provide a refresher regarding the plan and the process. She described her background that includes 30 years of urban planning experience and now teaching at UW. She pointed out Ms. Kriegh also has a Master’s Degree in Architecture and 20 years of experience and is currently in the PhD program at UW. Ms. Sterrett displayed a map of Westgate and 5 Corners, explaining their study began by comparing those areas to downtown. The EDC worked with the UW team throughout the process; their goal was business growth and jobs which in turn would provide more tax revenue for the City. The EDC was also interested in moderate priced housing for young adults and local service workers. One of the reasons the plan was prepared was to assist developers in understanding what the City wants the area to be. This can result in a faster review process, reducing developers’ risk and helping the City and residents get what they want. The plan uses the concept of form-based code. She compared traditional zoning codes, design guidelines and form-based codes: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses • Design guidelines modulate building facades and materials • Form-based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private space to support users and foster local character In the early portion of the study in fall 2010, they looked at what works in other commercial centers. They worked with Forterra, previously known as Cascade Land Conservancy; principles they followed include complete (a mix of uses within a given space), compact (close to each other) and connected (good transit, bike, pedestrian connection in the area and to surrounding area). As part of the study, a market analysis was conducted. She displayed a comparison of square footages in Westgate, current and future, with regard to retail, anchors, other retail and service, office, residential. The timing of redevelopment was estimated at 5-15 years. The economist who conducted the analysis concluded Westgate currently functions as neighborhood retail but has the potential to be community retail. She noted Edmonds collects approximately $12,000 per year per resident in retail sales tax; Redmond collects $18,000. Ms. Sterrett reviewed details of the participatory public process: • Community survey by mail and online (October 2010-March 2011) o Strong interest by all age groups in more outdoor public spaces and improved area walkability • Listening Sessions (January 2011) Fears included: Change, traffic, losing favorites, and developers not listening • Public Design Workshop (March 2011) o Public participation in a design workshop with local professionals o Identify community values o Design for life (activities) to determine the arrangement of spaces, and finally the placement of buildings o Incorporate a “green infrastructure” overlay o Developed a number of workshop summaries • Alternatives Preferences Forum (May 2011) o Two preferred alternatives were presented to the public, EDC, Planning Board o Presented to Council in June 2011; Council directed Planning Board to work with UW Julie Kriegh, AIA, LEED AP, Kriegh Architecture Studios, referred to this as the form-based code plus plan because it considers the relationship between building, private spaces and public spaces as well as sustainable building practices, green features and open space, green infrastructure, diversity of commercial and residential housing types, multiple options for transportation and parking opportunities. Packet Page 543 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 11 She displayed an example of possible development illustrating retail/commercial, office residential and parking. The plan does not regulate the uses, as that is typically market driven; the plan offers opportunity for property and business owners and leverages those on a neighborhood scale. She pointed out the plan has parking behind buildings, creating life spaces and activities in front of the buildings. Bike access, pedestrian streets and open green space are envisioned within each quadrant. She described the intent and goals of leveraging synergies: Create mixed-use walkable, compact, commercial centers; improve connections for bicyclists and pedestrians; enhance Westgate identity and visibility; prioritize amenity spaces; promote civic and private investments; incorporate sustainable features; regulate building placement and form; and create a variety of housing choices and retail options and parking options. Ms. Kriegh described what is regulated by the Plan: 1. Amenity spaces: common areas; plazas; sidewalks; lawns; pocket parks; trees; stormwater management. 2. Required build-to lines for each type of street 3. Street types 4. Building types • Rowhouse – townhome apartments or condominiums • Live Work – townhome apartments or condominiums with work studio • Stacked dwellings – two level living units with retail on the ground level • Courtyard residential – apartment or condominium flats • Side court – retail mixed use with office or residential above • Commercial block – office, retail, mixed use with office or residential above • Sustainable standards menu: LEED, evergreen, built green, passive house, living building challenge. 5. Building frontage types 6. Sustainable and green features • Based on successful Seattle Green Factor for commercial and multi-family zones • Flexible system to address ecological a neighborhood livability functions • Developer selects options to gain bonus stories 7. Development requirements and options Ms. Kriegh explained the benefit for the community is there is a Plan for property owners and developers to look at and that provides choices and they can adhere to community values and vision and work with the City for a clear framework to meet the needs of the community today and in the future. Ms. Sterrett described administration and implementation of the Plan. She described City actions to encourage development: 1. Create a demonstration project through RFQ process 2. Create public art, temporary space activation 3. Allow community and non-profit uses for existing vacant buildings 4. City partnership in amenities, open space, and parking that are leveraged 5. with green stormwater infrastructure 6. Create Planned Action Environmental Statement 7. Publicize Special District Plan- • Highlight FBC • Show developable parcels • Identify capacity of utilities • Feature desired activities • Demonstrate housing demand Packet Page 544 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 12 Ms. Sterrett displayed a list of team members who contributed to the development of the Plan. Council President Petso acknowledged she voted against this Plan because she does not believe it will happen on a State highway. She observed the Plan considers five story buildings. Ms. Sterrett agreed, noting the location where 5-story buildings are allowed is defined in the plan; it is in limited areas up against the steep slopes. Council President Petso observed the Plan incentivizes small units to support low income/affordable housing. Ms. Sterrett answered the City does not currently have a low income/affordable housing program. The Plan includes workforce housing, smaller units that would be in the price range of young adults and service workers. Council President Petso commented redevelopment of the PCC property into a 5-story, lot line to lot line apartment may be more profitable than the current grocery store, yet the City needs the grocery store. If development of apartments was more profitable, she questioned how favorite uses would not be lost. Ms. Sterrett answered that was part of those company’s business models. Many grocery stores have a model with the grocery store on the ground floor and including apartments above. Council President Petso observed parking requirements were reduced to one space per unit. Ms. Sterrett agreed the Plan suggest a formula for parking which the Planning Board will review. The concept was these would be smaller units and the parking standard would be one parking space per dwelling unit. Council President Petso commented when she reviewed the examples and incentives for extra height, she was able to develop a combination of factors that would allow a 5-story building with no public place- making amenities. She asked if that could be tweaked to ensure public spaces are created, recalling creating public spaces was the consensus of the survey respondents. Ms. Sterrett noted some amenities are required for 1-3 stories; incentives for additional stories can be tweaked. It was her understanding the Planning Board was considering that. Council President Petso asked whether the current proposal was to reduce the 5 lanes on 100th/9th to 3 lanes. Ms. Sterrett acknowledged the team that prepared the Plan are not traffic experts; that part of the Plan needs further review by the Planning Board and Transportation Department. Mr. Clifton answered the Plan is not to reduce the number of lanes on 100th/9th. The traffic impact study determined it was not appropriate to put 9th Avenue on a “road diet” and instead recommended leaving the roadway as is. Councilmember Peterson referred to Council President Petso’s comment about PCC constructing a 5- story lot line to lot line building, pointing out that would not be allowed in that space. Mr. Chave explained the Plan does not say Westgate in its entirety can be redeveloped with apartments; there is a mixture of uses by location. He pointed out QFC owns their property and it will not be redeveloped until QFC wants to. Councilmember Bloom asked how parking would occur behind the buildings, for example on the QFC or PCC parcels. Ms. Sterrett answered parking would only be moved as properties redeveloped. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Plan was based on property ownership. Ms. Sterrett answered yes; that was one of the difficulties of this Plan. Traditionally when a City considers redevelopment of an area, they acquire the property. This Plan respects the current property ownership and it is up to property owners to respond to the Plan and make it work for their property. The concepts lay a foundation for public space and connectivity and encourage developers to do internal circulation. Councilmember Bloom summarized as each property redevelops, there are incentives for additional stories to provide certain amenities. Ms. Sterrett agreed. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Planning Board was reviewing the incentives to ensure the correct ones are offered. Mr. Chave agreed the Planning Packet Page 545 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 13 Board was reviewing the details. Ms. Sterrett explained the goal is commonality and compatibility in future development. The incentives that allow a developer to achieve additional height also allow the City to achieve the benefits it wants. Councilmember Bloom asked how that fit with the code rewrite. Mr. Chave answered it will fit into the zoning chapter that considers uses; the companion will be the added design features and form-based code that will apply specifically to these zones. The Planning Board will determine how it will fit with current zoning. 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE CITY UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENTS. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised City Engineer Rob English and Nihat Dogan, FCS Group, were present to answer questions. This is a discussion item with possible Council direction for use in preparing the 2014 budget and finalizing the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Sewer Mr. Williams provided history regarding sewer rates: • No rate increase in the last 9 years (2004) • Only adjustment in the last 9 years was a 2.4% decrease in 2006 He provided a comparison of current sewer rates: Seattle $116.50 Kirkland $ 91.15 Ronald Wastewater District $ 75.14 Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville Water District $ 65.77 Mukilteo Water & Sewer District $ 57.59 Lake Forest Park $ 55.44 Redmond $ 52.89 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 51.46 Lynnwood $ 39.57 Everett $ 34.94 Edmonds $ 27.85 Olympia View Water & Sewer District $ 23.66 Mr. Williams displayed a spreadsheet of sewer revenues and expenses 2013-2019, explaining a 6% base case annual rate adjustment is necessary 2014-2019 to cover current expenses and debt service. He displayed a chart illustrating the impact of a 6% rate adjustment; Edmonds’ rate increases to $39.51. He described another option, to pay capital costs with rates rather than debt, which would require a 9.5% increase 2014-2019. At the end of that time period, rates would generate approximately $2 million/year for capital projects. Under that option, Edmonds’ rate would increase to $48.01, still in the lower half of comparator cities. Councilmember Bloom asked how many years the 6% increase would be necessary. Mr. Williams answered the illustration was a 6% increase per year for 6 years; it includes current borrowing, borrowing again in 2 years, again 2 years later, etc. to provide capital funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any of the comparator cities’ rates included water or stormwater. Mr. Williams answered they were strictly sewer rates. Water Mr. Williams explained the current Water Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Council in 2010, assumes 7.5% rate adjustments each year. He displayed a comparison of water rates: Packet Page 546 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 1 REVISIONING Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code City of Edmonds August 29, 2012 Packet Page 547 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 1 1.1 | Intent and Goals for Westgate The ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form- Based Code (herein called “the plan”) establishes a vision for new types of development in the Westgate area, currently zoned Neighborhood Business. The plan proposes mixed-use development, including dwelling units, offices and retail spaces in a walkable community center with many amenity spaces. The intent of the plan is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the Westgate District with a distinctive character. The goals for the Westgate District Plan and Form-Based Code include: 1. Creating mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community-friendly, 2. Improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users, 3. Prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings, 4. Emphasizing green building construction, storm- water infiltration, and a variety of green features, 5. Establishing a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form, 6. Ensuring civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large, and 7. Encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. Recognizing the complexities associated with this neighborhood business site, the plan seeks a balance between open space, green features, commercial, retail and residential needs. The planning process addressed the Westgate area in terms of Life, Space and Buildings, a process pioneered by Gehl Architects of Copenhagen. The Gehl approach is summarized below: Life: a vision for public life begins with the people who live in the neighborhood. Including everyone’s input helps paint a clear picture of neighborhood life. This understanding is the key to improving neighborhood vitality. Space: The next step is to envision public spaces that can best support the life of the neighbor- hood. What types of public spaces do people need for the life that was discussed in the first step? A focus on the fine-grained, human-scale of spaces is crucial. Buildings: Finally, planning should address the quality, height, massing, scale and functions of the buildings that will support neighborhood life and fit the spaces that were defined in the second step. For the Westgate District, significant attributes of the Form-Based Code were made visible through applying the Gehl approach. Specifically, the plan features: t-JGFHSFFO PVUEPPSBNFOJUZTQBDFT QFEFTUSJBO access; good internal circulation; shopping destination with local attractions, especially bakeries, restaurants, and grocery stores; protecting the tree canopy; and retaining existing viable retail. For Westgate, the understanding of this vision was derived from a series of public meetings, (described in Section 1.3 below); t4QBDFTBGFDSPTTJOHT HSFFOPQFOTQBDF EFöOFE plaza space; buildings to street edges; circulation on pedestrian corridors and internal streets; bike-friendly routes and dedicated bike lanes; and water quality features. For Westgate, our understanding of these public spaces was derived from both research (described in Section 1.2) and the public process (described in Section 1.3); and t#VJMEJOHTCVJMEJOHTHSPVQFE BNQMFPQFOTQBDF activated facades, green roofs and deck access; incen- tives and trade-offs for additional building height; tuck-under parking, parking structures, street parking and surface parking; sense of enclosure for residential and open areas; and maintaining some larger building footprints for anchor stores. For Westgate, the process of creating a concept for development (shown in the illustrative plan) began with a hands-on public work- shop (described in Section 1.3) and evolved through many iterations of working with the initial products of the workshop, the plans developed by the GFL team, and the input of staff, the EDC and the Planning Board. Section 1.4 further describes the plan concept and attributes of the plan design. 1.0 | Introduction Packet Page 548 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 2 In Fall of 2010, an undergraduate student team from the University of Washington initiated the background research for the ReVisioning Westgate project with a preliminary site analyses of the Westgate area. The team mapped sidewalk conditions, measured the distance travelled within 5 and 10-minute walks of the main intersection, and collected parking counts to measure the current demand. The team used Gehl Architects’ 12-quality criteria methodology to evaluate the project site on the basis of the site’s current capa- city to provide protection, comfort, and enjoyment for persons of all ages (Figure 1.2-1). See also Appendix 1a. The results indicated that the existing Westgate site is deficient on eleven of the twelve quality criteria. In particular, opportunities to safely sit, stand, walk, and talk were found to be especially deficient at Westgate. However, the site did provide possibilities for interesting and unhindered views. Phase Two of the Project was initiated in January 2011 by a team of graduate students from the UW Green Futures Lab (GFL). This phase of work focused on researching case studies of other municipalities and their work with Form Based Codes. In particular, the team examined recently adopted form-based codes from Benecia, California; Farmers Branch, Texas; Ventura, California; and Miami, Florida. One of the GFL team members also met with city officials and residents in Miami to discuss the public process, challenges, and successes of developing the Miami21 form-based code.The Miami21citywide plan was developed by Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Company and 1.2 | Summary of Background Research Figure 1.2-1: Westgate 12 Quality Criteria was awarded the American Planning Association’s (APA) 2011 National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice. Using GIS (Geographic Information System) data, the team mapped property lines, steep slopes, locations of mature trees, topography in a digital terrain model, identified sidewalk breaks, and recorded other existing conditions. With input from the public at public meetings, the GFL team identified existing biking/ pedestrian connections, green features, and move- ment corridors for wildlife habitat. The focus of Phase Three of the Revisioning Westgate project included the public involvement process that is further described in Section 1.3. Phase Four brought together the results of all previous public workshops and the extensive research work of the GFL team. In a public open house setting, the public reviewed and responded to two draft alternatives,representing alternative approaches to development at Westgate. The public marked preference cards to identify site features they found most desirable. Throughout the duration of the project, the team worked with City staff and the Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) who offered local perspective, critiqued the findings of the GFL team’s work, and offered guidance when needed. Briefings were held for the EDC throughout the process and more extensive work sessions were held for in-depth discussions of the alternatives and preferred plans on April 20, May 20, and June 15, 2011. Courtesy Gehl Architects 12 Quality Criteria for Good Public Space PR O T E C T I O N EN J O Y M E N T CO M F O R T 1. Against Traffic and Accidents 2. Against Crime and Violence 4. Possiblities for Walking 5. Possibilities for Standing/Staying 6. Possibilities for Sitting 7. Possibilities to See 8. Possibilities for Talking/Hearing 9. Possibilities for Play/Unfolding of Activities 10. Human Scale 11. Possibilities for Enjoying Positive Aspects of Climate 12. Aesthetic Quality/ Positive Sense Experiences 3. Unpleasant Sense Experiences Packet Page 549 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 56 7.5.1 | Movement Opportunities | Green Connections S R 1 0 4 10 0 t h E d m o n d s 232nd 98 t h 96 t h 95 t h 93 r d 234th 8t h 10 6 t h 236th 15th 97 t h 226th 1 0 2 n d 237th 235th 23 Robin Hood 10 4 t h 9 4 t h 14th 6 t h 10 1 s t P a r a d i s e 10 5 t h 7t h 10 7 t h 229th 231 s t Nottingham Hu m b e r Birch t h 13th 99 t h 225th 227th Access Fi r d a l e Co r o n a d o Friar T u c k 233rd Ea t o n Littl e J o h n 8t h 14th 92 n d 10 1 s t 235th 228th 7 t h 99t h Access 9 4 t h 7th 235th 236th 96 t h 226th 13th 10 7 t h 94 t h 226th 10 6 t h 7t 231st 234th 10 2 n d 99 t h 93 r d Acce s s 94 t h 232nd 227th 96 t h 237th Access 236th 97 t h Access 226th 235th 92 n d 97 t h 236th 234th 5t h 98 t h 238th 8t h 228th 91 s t 14th 94t h 99 t h 237th 231st Birch Madrona School Hickman Park Westgate Chapel pic View Watershed Cemetary Westgate Elementary Sherwood Elementary Woodway Elementary Edmonds Memorial Cemetary Edmonds Presbyterian Church Salem Lutheran Church PUD Sub Staton? Faith C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h h9th hhhh236th 2236th 10 6 t h 228th AAc n dd SSS h 8t h 8t h 4th14th 99 t h h h h h 7t h h h 9t h 4 R 1 1 S R 1 0 4 m o n d d m o n d E d m o n d s ddnd th h 9 4 t h h234th d 92 n d Chapelp N 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet Legend green connections - potential movement connections - potential walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes By establishing green connections between destinations (such as schools and parks), the neighborhood becomes more walkable, as well as provides better connected habitat for wildlife. There is great opportunity to connect existing parks, with new continuous green spaces providing significantly higher habitat value than isolated spaces. These green improvements will provide the aesthetic features that will contribute to a more livable residential environment surrounding Westgate (see Section 4). Green connections and features can also help to reduce the impacts of urbanization on the natural environment. Currently rainwater runoff from Edmonds roads, roofs and parking lots flows directly into the area's streams and to Puget Sound, without first filtering the petroleum and metals that vehicles generate. Street trees, natural areas and sustainable stormwater infrastructure will help to slow and filter this stormwater, to alleviate the pollution burden that city streets puts on local water bodies. Figure 7.5-1 shows some of the opportunities to increase green connections in the areas surrounding the Westgate District. Figure 7.5-1: Westgate Regional Green Connection Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 550 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 57 N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! S R 1 0 4 10 0 t h E d m o n d s 232nd 98 t h 96 t h 95 t h 93 r d 234th 8t h 10 6 t h 236th 15th 97 t h 226th 1 0 2 n d 237th 235th 238th Robin Hood 10 4 t h 9 4 t h 14th 6 t h 10 1 s t P a r a d i s e 10 5 t h 7t h 10 7 t h 229th 231 s t Nottingham Hu m b e r Birch 5 t h 13th 99 t h 225th 227th Access Fi r d a l e Co r o n a d o Friar T u c k 233rd Ea t o n Littl e J o h n 8t h 14th 92 n d 10 1 s t 235th 228th 7 t h 99t h Access 9 4 t h 7th 235th 236th 96 t h 226th 13th 10 7 t h 94 t h 226th 10 6 t h 7t h 231st 234th 10 2 n d 99 t h 93 r d Acce s s 94 t h 232nd 227th 96 t h 237th Access 236th 97 t h Access 226th 235th 92 n d 97 t h 236th 234th 5t h 98 t h 238th 8t h 228th 91 s t 14th 94t h 99 t h 237th 231st Birch Madrona School Hickman Park Westgate Chapel mpic View Watershed Cemetary Westgate Elementary Sherwood Elementary Woodway Elementary Edmonds Memorial Cemetary Edmonds Presbyterian Church Salem Lutheran Church PUD Sub Staton? Faith Community Church 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet 7.5.2 | Movement Opportunities | Sidewalks ! Legend opportunity/need for better walking conditions transit stops sidewalks walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes By making good pedestrian connections to the Westgate District, pedestrian use of the District may increase. This supports the plan’s reduction in on-site parking requirements and enhanced amenity space, site activities and green features. Figure 7.5-2 shows sidewalk conditions in the vicinity of the Westgate District and highlights areas where sidewalk improvements are needed. Figure 7.5-2: Westgate Regional Sidewalk Improvement Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 551 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 58 220th 76 t h 218th Main 84 t h 212 216th 92 n d Bowd o i n 206th 88 t h 77 t h 85 t h 203rd 95 t h 8 3 r d Pio n e e r 217th 215th 86 t h 210th 208t 78 t h 81 s t 80 t h 90 t h Ma p l e w o o d 12 t h 82 n d 93 r d H i l l c r e s t 207th 79 t h 205th Sh e l l V a l l e y Park Su m m i t 214th A 213th 89 t h Hi g h l a n d 8 7 t h 219th Skyl i n e Hospital Dr w y monds Wo o d l a k e 211th 209th Sh e l l 82 n d 215th 85 t h 209th 80 t h 204th 92 n d 214th 215th Access 214th 88 t h 80 t h Access 215th 82 n d 88 t h 78 t h 86 t h 82 n d 81 s t 93 r d 8 2 n d 77 t h 219thAccess 208th 78 t h 92 84 t h 79 t h 88 t h 216th 204th 12 t h Access 206th 207th 210th 88 t h 217th 204th Ac c e s s 206th 207th 209th 207th Access A c c e s s 95 t h 216th Pa r k Access 78 t h Ac c e s s 86 t h Ac c e s s 81 s t 205th 217th d 218th 78 t h Ac c e s s 77 t h 85 t h 215th 208th 8 2 n d 12 t h e s s 8 3 r d 217th 93 r d 86 t h Ac c e s s Ac c e s s Yost Memorial Park Pine Ridge Park Edmonds Woodway High School College Place Jun College Place Steven's Hospital Chase Lake School Olympic Baptst Church Grace Church Water Tank Edgewood Baptst Church 7.5.3 | Movement Opportunities | Cycling N 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet Legend bike connections - potential walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes Making new bicycle connections will enable people to get to Westgate without getting in their cars, and will create safe ways to cycle between schools, parks and residential areas. The City’s Bike Master Plan identifies 100th Avenue West as a potential route and a critical link to nearby schools and existing bicycle infrastructure. Figure 7.5-3 shows opportunities to improve bycycling connections between the Westgate District and the surrounding neighborhoods. Figure 7.5-3: Westgate Regional Cycling Improvement Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 552 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 3 The GFL team began the four-phase public process in Fall 2010. During the first phase, the team conducted an online survey to gain insight of how the public uses the site and to learn what improvements the public might desire. The survey was marketed by the City of Edmonds through a postcard mailer sent to approximately 2,200 residences within a 2000-ft radius of each center. The survey was open from November 9, 2010 through March 22, 2011 and received 387 individual responses. The online survey found respondents of all ages considered ‘more public spaces’ as the best way to improve the site (Figure 1.3-1). Many respondents also stated they desired better restaurants and safer streets. Phase Two included a public meeting, termed a Listening Session, with about 25 people attending. Led by The Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) and the GFL team, participants at this session were presented with data from the Phase One online survey, shown examples of local built projects that reflected best practices for creating high quality public spaces, and given a brief tutorial on green infrastructure. The informational presentation was followed by an instant polling audience-response, visual preference survey. Participants were issued digital “clickers” that allowed for real-time tabulations of their responses, which allowed each respondent to see the combined responses of the whole group. They were asked to respond to multiple-choice questions and select 1.3 | Summary of Public Process Figure 1.3-2 visual preferences to various building configurations and street treatments. Figure 1.3-2 provides an example question and audience responses. (See Appendix 1b for additional highlights from the visual preference survey). The participants expressed the desire to bring building fronts to the street and to allow activities, such as outdoor café tables, on the sidewalks where appropriate. The city staff organized individual meetings with some of the property owners in the Westgate area. From these meetings staff and the consultant team gained an understanding of the constraints and potentials for new development at Five Corners. Guided by what the team heard in the first two phases, the Phase Three public involvement effort focused on a half-day Saturday Design Workshop. At this workshop, residents and local business owners engaged with design professionals in a hands-on effort to create designs for Westgate. The workshop began with summary of what the GFL team heard from the public during the Phase One and Two processes and a brief overview of green infrastructure. Approximately 65 citizens and members of the city’s boards and City Council attended the workshop. The attendees were divided into nine small groups, separately addressing Five Corners or Westgate. Led by a design professional, each group designed a plan by first considering the life (activities), they would like to be able to do on site. The teams then located plazas and open spaces needed to support these life activities on the site. Ages < 24 (9 respondents) Ages 25 – 44 (94 respondents) Ages 45 - 64 (137 respondents) Ages 65+ (85 respondents) Suggestions for Improvements, categorized by age ++4 ++4 ++4 ,,4 --4 ./4 /04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # $& % # # $& % # # & % # ++4 +,4 +/4 +/4 ,)4 ,*4 /04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # $& % # # $& % # # & % # *14 +,4 +14 +14 ,,4 ,.4 -04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # & % # # $& % # # $& % # *14 +.4 +04 +14 +14 -)4 --4 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # & % # # $& % # # $& % # Figure 1.3-1: Suggestions for Improvements, categorized by age Packet Page 553 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 4 W ESTGATE ALTERNATIVES ARTS & FOOD HUB For each alternative check the design features that appeal to you most URBAN VILLAGE GENERAL COMMENTS: 3 story height limit buildings oriented toward 100th Ave. W & SR-104 buildings oriented toward internal circulation 4 stories w/ height bonus opportunities, higher buildings concentrated at corners & around pocket park retain PCC, Starbucks, & existing thriving buildings, QFC remains but re-developed phased re-development of entire site w/ retention of PCC or similar supermarket larger building footprints accommodate garden centers, home supplies, entertainment, & larger offices smaller building footprints accommodate independent shops, starter businesses, & small offices water quality & open space features concentrated along SR-104 water quality & open space features concentrated at village park regional & chain shopping experience w/ live/ work housing in southwest quad inceased housing, office, and local shops w/ live/work housing & studios concentrated in northwest quad & dispersed throughout pedestrian improvements concentrated along 100th Ave. W pedestrian improvements focused along privately-owned internal roads surface parking surface, tuck-under, & structured parking rely on existing mass transit transit center temporary farmers market site at surface parking lot near cemetery temporary farmers market w/ street closure at village park buffer off-site residential w/ vegetation buffer buffer off-site residential w/ housing where possible protect existing vegetation optimize new building potential 1.3 | Summary of Public Process Lastly, the teams used wooden blocks, scaled to repre- sent building sizes, to place buildings on their plans to define the edges of the desired life-space, enhance the overall character, and activate the site. Figure 1.3-3 shows an example conceptual plan representing the results of one of the Westgate teams at this workshop. The conceptual plans developed by the other teams are provided in Appendix 1c. Phase Four brought together the results of all previous workshops and the extensive work of the GFL team. In a public open house setting, the public reviewed and responded to two draft alt- ernatives, representing alternative approaches to development at Westgate. The public marked preference cards to identify site features they found most desirable (Figure 1.3-4). Through the duration of the project, the team worked with the Edmonds Economic Develop- ment Commission (EDC) to offer local perspective, critique the findings of the GFL team’s work, and offer guidance when needed. Regular briefings were held for the EDC throughout the project and more extensive work sessions were held for in-depth discussions of the alternatives and pre- ferred plans on April 20, May 20, and June 15. A Summary of Common Themes heard at these public meetings is provided in Appendix 1e. Figure 1.3-3: Conceptual Plan for Westgate from the Public Design Workshop Figure 1.3-4: Preference Card for Public Input on Alternatives Packet Page 554 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 6 Public Use Plaza Residential Green Space Rain Garden Retail Office Existing 1.4 | Westgate Illustrative Site Plan Amenity Space: The variety of outdoor spaces required of all future development, which includes lawns, plazas, squares, accessible rooftops, and sidewalks. Figure 1.4-1 shows a 3-dimensional view of possible development in the Westgate area under the form- based code. This view shows the building scale and types of uses of potential future development for the Westgate area that could develop over the next 10 to 20 years. This view illustrates how the area might develop, but is not intended to regulate the exact land use, size, location, or amenities of future development. In meetings to discuss alternative plans for the West- gate area, the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board recognized the local resident’s interests and also felt it is necessary to provide incen- tives to property owners to create amenity space and the desired small-unit housing. Thus, the Concept Plan for Westgate allows for up to 3 story development throughout the area. All parcels are also eligible for height bonuses that would allow up to a total of 4 or 5 stories, subject to the development review process as defined in City Code and the bonus requirements (see Section 6.5). An important restriction on permitting the 5th story is that it is allowed only where the added height backs against steep slopes, to reduce impacts on existing adjacent residential uses and to avoid a canyon-like effect of tall buildings along the two major roads (see Section 6.5). Figure 1.4-1 provides an illustration showing a mix of potential building heights and a possible combination of uses. Figure 1.4-1: Westgate Illustrative Massing Plan: Example of Potential Development (not regulatory) Table 1.4-2 Potential Development as Illustrated in Fig. 1.4-1 Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Total Retail (new) 20,200 122,400 42,300 64,800 249,700 Retail (retained) 20,200 34,500 54,700 Office 27,000 13,000 81,800 45,800 167,600 Bed & Breakfast 32,400 32,400 Live-work units 24 24 Residential units 32 62 34 52 180 Parking spaces 170 397 281 363 1,211 Development total* 67,400 169,900 124,100 143,000 504,400 *Total square footage excludes dwelling units Packet Page 555 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 7 Section 5 – Private Investment: Gathering Spaces and Green Feature Standards: This section provides information on Green Factor requirements. This section also sets the standards for plazas, gathering spaces, and parking configurations. Section 6 – Administration and Implementation: This section describes how the review of development proposals in the Westgate District will be handled under the Form-Based Code, consistent with City procedures for other development. This section also identifies the bonus system which allows for added building height when various conditions are met. Section 7 – Recommendations: This section provides information for the City Council, Boards and Commissions that describe actions the city can take to foster development under the Westgate plan and to meet the goals of the plan. Section 1 – Introduction: This section lays out the goals and intent of the plan. It also describes how the plan was con- structed relevant to background research and the public process. This section also explains how the plan is structured. Section 2 – The Regulating Framework: This section establishes the Regulating Frame- work for the Form-Based Code. It provides a con- solidated overview of the permitted development standards for each property and for the adjacent public rights-of-way. These development stan- dards are detailed further in Sections 3 through 6. Section 3 – Building Standards: This section provides detailed standards for build- ing types, including placement, height, and front- age types, as well as green building construction and housing diversity requirements. Section 4 – Civic Investment: Streetscape and Public Space Standards: This section sets the standard for sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes, landscaping, and streets with the intent to build coherent, safe transportation corridors for all modes of travel. This section is also intended to assist developers in understanding how a building site relates to the street. ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code establishes standards for new development in the Westgate area. The plan is organized so that the parts interrelate and often must be reviewed together. The sections in the Table of Contents show the main topics and the overall organization of the plan. Each of the major sections is described below. 1.5 | Organization of the Plan Packet Page 556 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 8 Purpose This section establishes the Regulating Framework that defines development standards for the building forms and land use types that are allowed within the Westgate District. The Regulating Framework includes Core Concepts, Amenity Space and Green Features Types, Street Types, Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. Principles and Intent A core principle of the Westgate Plan is to provide spaces for the use and enjoyment of the public, green features which protect and enhance the environment, and multi-modal access to amenity spaces as well as to businesses. The Regulating Framework is the controlling document and principal tool for implementing the Westgate District form-based code. The Regulating Framework provides standards for the development of each property or lot and illustrates how each relates to the adjacent properties and public right-of-way. The Regulating Framework for the Westgate District identifies the Core Concepts of the plan, Amenity Space and Green Feature Types, Street Types & Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. 2.0 | The Regulating Framework 2.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent t%FTJHOJOHBMBOETDBQFFNQIBTJTGPSUIFQSJNBSZ intersection. t$SFBUJOHBMJWFMZQFEFTUSJBOFOWJSPONFOUXJUIXJEF sidewalks and requirements for buildings to be placed close to the sidewalk. t-BOETDBQJOHUIFQMB[BT PQFOTQBDFT BOEQBSLJOH areas with a requirement of 15% landscaped open space. t1SPNPUJOHBTVTUBJOBCMFMPXJNQBDUEFWFMPQNFOU with a requirement for bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs and other features to retain and infiltrate storm water. t1SPWJEJOHXPSLGPSDFIPVTJOHBOEJODSFBTJOHSFTJEFO- tial uses with a requirement of 10% small-sized dwell- ing units. t1SPWJEJOHPQUJPOTGPSOPONPUPSJ[FEUSBOTQPSUBUJPO linking new bike lanes into the city’s larger system of bike lanes and extending sidewalks and pedestrian paths into the surrounding residential areas. The core concept for the Westgate District is to create a vibrant mixed-use activity center that enhances the economic development of the city and provides hous- ing as well as retail and office uses to meet the needs of all age groups. The plan seeks to retain key features of the area, including protecting the large trees and green surrounding hillsides, while increasing walk- ability and gathering spaces, such as plazas and open spaces. (See figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2). Other important aspects of the Concept Plan for Westgate include: 2.2 | Core Concepts Figure 2.1-1: Westgate Illustrative Map: Trees and Hillsides Protecting Steep Slope Areas is a Core Concept of the Plan Packet Page 557 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 9 As noted in the previous section, an important component of the Westgate District Plan is the provision of ample amenity space and encouragement of green features throughout the District. In addition to the requirements for individual properties, the Westgate District plan includes some common areas that will provide amenity space and green features. Specifically, these include: 2.3 | Amenity Space & Green Features Types t-BOETDBQFFOIBODFNFOUTBUUIFJOUFSTFDUJPO of SR 104 and 100th Street to create a clear identity and a distinct central point for the Westgate District. t"QVCMJDQBSLJOUIF/8RVBESBOUPGUIFTJUF providing shared amenity space for residents in the area. t-JOLBHFTGSPNUIF8FTUHBUF%JTUSJDUUP surrounding residential areas to encourage walking and biking to the District. t&YQBOEFETFUCBDLBSFBT GSPNGFFUUPGFFU along SR 104 to provide separation for pedestrians from traffic and to provide landscaping to enhance the natural setting for motorists along SR 104 t#JPTXBMFTBMPOH4UBUF3PBE 100th Avenue West, Bowdoin Way, and 84th Avenue West. Figure 2.3-1: Westgate Illustrative Plan of Open Space with Example Photos Packet Page 558 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 11 2.5 | Building Types Properties in the Westgate District are allowed buildings up to 3 stories in height, with an additional 1 to 2 stories permitted for development meeting the bonus criteria including considerations of topography. See Section 6.5 for bonus provisions. There are seven Building Types allowed in the Westgate District, as listed below: 1. Rowhouse - Two or more attached story townhome apartments or condominiums. 2. Courtyard - A cluster of apartment or condominium flats arranged to share one or more common court- yards. 3. Stacked Dwelling - The building massing is predi- cated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of non-residential commercial uses on the ground level with residential above. 4. Live-work - An integrated housing apartment or condominium and working space designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. Figure 2.5-1: Allowed Locations for each Building Type 1. Rowhouse 7. Commercial Mixed-Use 6. Side Court Mixed-Use 5. Loft Mixed-Use 4. Live-Work 3. Stacked Dwelling 2. Courtyard 5. Loft Mixed-Use - Loft Mixed-Use buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stack- ing of units organized on lobby, corridor, and elevator access. Loft buildings have greater height per floor to accommodate the second floor loft area within a unit. 6. Side Court Mixed-Use - Retail mixed-Use with office or residential above, or community service mixed-use with office or residential above. 7. Commercial Block | Mixed-Use - Retail mixed-use or community service mixed-use with residential above. Retail only, office only or community service mixed-use with office or retail above. Each Building Type is allowed only within specified locations within the Westgate District, as shown in figures below. Most properties have an option of several building types. Packet Page 559 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 12 2.6 | Frontage Types Drawing for coding purposes only. This section establishes the regulations for Frontage Types within the Westgate District. The purpose of the Frontage Types is to ensure coherent streets and to assist developers and owners with understanding the relationship between building fronts and public space. Building Frontage Types are carefully coordinated with Building Types, see Section 3.3 for regulations on which frontage types are allowed for each Building type. Figure 2.6-1: Frontage Type Locations Shopfront or Gallery Frontages allowed All Frontage types allowed Secondary Frontage type allowed >100’ from building corner at the intersection of 100th Ave W. and SR-104 (see section 3.3) Standards Primary façades shall be built to the Required Building Line along a minimum 60% of the Required Building Line. Where Secondary Frontage types are allowed, 40% of the frontage shall be built to the Required Building Line. Any section along the Required Building Line that is not defined by a building must be defined by amenity space or green space except to allow for the minimum necessary openings for vehicular traffic. For both primary and secondary frontages, façades on retail stores shall be glazed with clear glass occupying no less than 60% of the sidewalk-level story. Loading docks, drive-throughs, or other service entries are prohibitted on street facing façades. Any building GBÎBEF facing a public street shall include changes in building form, modulation, archways, entrances, porches, or stoops for every 12’ of frontage. When appropriate, access through the building to rear parking or amenity spaces should be at intervals no more than every 150’ of the façade facing a public street. Awnings, bay windows, or other non-street level building design features may encroach on the Required Building Line, but not on the Property Line. Key SR-104 1 0 0 t h A v e . W Proposed Internal Circulation Drive Packet Page 560 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 13 3.1 | Purpose, Principles, and Intent 3.0 | Building Types All parcels in the Westgate District may have up to 3 stories allowed with a bonus of 1 or 2 additional stories on any property meeting bonus criteria. See Section 6.5 for bonus provisions. Illustrative Plans Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 provide illustrations of possible future development of the Westgate District as it could occur over the next twenty years under the Westgate District Plan and Form-Based Code. The development illustrated in these figures correspond to the example development massing plan previously illustrated in Figure 1.4-1. The first of these (Figure 3.1-1) illustrated potential open space and green features, including green roof and rain gardens. In this illustrative plan, the buildings are left as white spaces (with labels to indicate land use) to emplasize the life-space areas. In the second illustration (Figure 3.1-2) new buildings are shaded as gray and retained existing uses are shaded as yellow. Labels within the building outline show the number of stories (height) of the building and the mix of uses. Both figures are illustrative of possible future development and are not regulatory. Each of the seven building types is detailed in Sec- tions 3.2.1 through 3.2.7 of this document. For each building type, an illustrative diagram and photos show the type of development that would occur under this building type, but that exact form or design shown is not required. For each building type, a diagram shows the allowed locations for that building type in green. For parcels that are not colored green, that building type is not allowed. Six of the seven building types allow a mixture of uses within the building. The rowhouse building type al- lows residential uses only. Three other building types are primarily residential, but do allow ground floor commercial uses. These three are: Courtyard, Stacked Dwellings, and Live-Work Units. The Loft and Side Court Mixed Use building types allow any use on any floor, while the Commercial Block Mixed Use allows residential uses only on upper floors. These regulations are summarized in Table 3.1-1. Purpose This Section identifies the building types allowed with- in the Westgate District, and provides design standards for each type, to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the city’s goals for building form and quality. Principles and Intent The intent of the Westgate District Plan is to create a lively and pedestrian-friendly environment by provid- ing for a variety of mixed use buildings and spaces. Each proposed building shall be designed in compli- ance with the standards of this Section for the ap- plicable building type and with the neighborhood character identity identified in Section 1.4. Allowable Building Types by Zone A lot may be developed only with a building type allowed by Section 3.2 in the zone applicable to the parcel. More than one building type is allowed on each parcel. Mixed Type Development The development regulations are structured by the definition of distinct building types of the Form Based Code that have been identified as specifically suitable for Westgate District in scale and configura- tion. On deep lots and aggregated lots, there is an opportunity to mix these types within a single devel- opment project. Mixing building types within a project encourages variety in the massing and organization of the buildings, open spaces on the lot, and on the frontages at a scale that is appropriate for Westgate. Scale and Massing The scale and massing of buildings is to be calibrated to the existing urban context with the intent of break- ing down large scale building masses and elements into “walkable neighborhood” elements and smaller scale building clusters. The contiguous lengths of building facades are regulated in the Frontage Types Section 3.3. The heights of buildings will be designated by area using stories as the measure rather than a prescribed height in feet. Upper floors are encouraged to be stepped back from street to allow an accessible roof deck or green roof area. Packet Page 561 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 14 Table 3.1-1: Allowed Uses by Floor for Each Building Type Building Type Residential Office Retail Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Loft Mixed Use Any floor Any floor Any floor Side Court Mixed Use Any floor Any floor Ground floor only Commercial Block Mixed Use Upper floors only Upper floors only Any floor Whenever residential uses occur, at least 10% of the residential units shall be very small units designed for workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and no unit will exceed 1,600 square feet in size. See Section 3.4, Workforce Housing Criteria, for further details. Packet Page 562 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 15 $ " $ + & % & ' $ ! & % & $ ' & ' $ $ ! * % & ! & # $ & ! & % # $ & ! & % * % & ! - * % & ! & ( " $ ' ! & % & - & & # $ & ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & & - & & # $ & ! & % & * % & ! & - " ) " ' % ! ) ' ! $ $ ! ' ! & % - $ " % % ) % & & # $ & ! & % & , , , , ! $ ! % ! $ ! % , , $ ( " $ ' ! & % ( " $ ' ! & % , & # $ & ! & % & & - - - , , , , $ $ ! % ! & & & " ) " ' % ! ) ' ! $ $ ! ' ! & % & & $ $ % & & , $ $ , & & % & ' $ ! & % & $ ' & ' $ $ ! & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % $ ! $ ! % $ " % % ) % & , 0 6 0 1 2 0 30 Fe e t L I F E S P A C E B U I L D I N G S P L A N Pu b l i c U s e P l a z a Bu i l d i n g F o o t p r i n t Gr e e n S p a c e Gr e e n R o o f Ra i n G a r d e n Po i n t s o f I n t e r e s t Figure 3.1-1: Illustrative Site Plan showing open space and green features Example of potential development, not regulatory Packet Page 563 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 16 0 6 0 1 2 0 30 Fe e t I L L U S T R A T I V E S I T E P L A N Pl a z a Bu i l d i n g F o o t p r i n t Pa r c e l B o u n d a r y Op e n S p a c e Ra i n G a r d e n s Wa t e r F e a t u r e Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g SR 10 4 1 0 0 t h Ed m ond s 23 2 n d 102nd 9 7 t h 9 8 t h 2 3 1 s t Ac c e s s 9 9 t h 22 8 t h 23 2 n d Ac c e s s Ac c e s s Ac c e s s 9 6 t h 9 8 t h 23 1 s t 22 8 t h Sc h o o l y PU D S u b S t a t i o n Sa l e m L u t h e r a n C h u r c h ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 4 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K ST O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 3 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 3 R E S I D E N T I A L W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S 1 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 2 R O W H O U S E W/ P A R K I N G S T O R I E S 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K W/ P A R K I N G S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R O W H O U S E W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 4 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L Figure 3.1-2: Illustrative Site Plan showing an example development with building heights and uses Example of potential development, not regulatory Packet Page 564 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 33 3.3 | Frontage Types Figure 3.3-1 (1) Frontages a, b, and c are not allowed within 100 feet measured from the building corner at the intersection of 100th Ave W. and SR-104. Private Frontage Public Frontage Required Building Line S t r e e t a. Terrace or Elevated Entry: The main façade is set back from the frontage line by an elevated terrace or entry. This type buffers residential use from sidewalks. The elevated terrace is also suitable for outdoor cafes (1). Terrace or Elevated Entry front- age is allowed on all building types. c. Stoop: The main façade is near the frontage line with the first story elevated to provide privacy. The stoop is appropriate for ground floor residential use (1). Stoop frontage may be used on Rowhouse, Courtyard, Live-Work, and Stacked Dwellings building types. d. Shopfront: The main façade is aligned close to the frontage line with the building entrance at sidewalk grade. The covering shall extent far enough to provide pedestrians protection from the weather. This type is appropriate for retail or office use only. Shopfront frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, Live-Work, Loft Mixed-Use, Side Court Office, or Commercial Block Mixed-Use building types where the building provides ground floor retail or office uses. e. Gallery PSBSDBEF : The main façade is set back from the frontage line with an at UBDIFEcantilevered colonnade overlapping the sidewalk. The entry should be at sidewalk grade. The galleryBSDBEF should be no less than 8’ feet wide. This type is appropriate GPSretail or office use only. GalleryBSDBEF frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, -JWFWork, Loft Mixed-Use, Side Court Office, or Commercial Block Mixed-Use building types where the building provides ground floor retail or office uses. b. Forecourt: The main façade is at the required building line with a portion set back for a small court space. The court could be used to provide shopping or restaurant seating in commercial CVJMEJOHT, or as an entry court for residential CVJMEJOHT. This type should be used sparingly (1).Forecourt frontage may be used on Courtyard, Stacked Dwellings, and Live-Work building types. (Right-of-way) Packet Page 565 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 37 FigVSF 4.1 - 434FDUJPO-PDBUJPO.BQ Notes: 1. The sidewalk and swale are depicted at 8’ and 7’, respectively. However, depending on stormwater volume, the width of both the sidewalk or the swale can vary. It is recommended that the sidewalk vary between 5-8’ and the swale between 5-7’. Also, depending on stormwater volume and capacity, the swale depicted here can built as Btraditional landscape strip, rain garden, or a vegetated swale planted with appropriate street trees. 2. Within the site boundary, the ROW on SR-104 is predominantly 80’. There are, however, a number of places where the ROW fluctuates between 80’ and 90’. The Streetscape Standard indicated here is for an 80’ ROW. At those places on SR-104 where the ROW widens, the respective landscape feature should also be required to widen accordingly. Thoroughfare Type: state highway Movement: free R.O.W Width: 80’ Design Speed: 35 mph Landscape: north side - vegetated swale, south side - street trees planted 30’ on center Traffic Lanes: 11’, two each way; 11’ center turn lane w/ intermittent planted median Bike Lane: none Parking: none Curb to Curb Distance: 55’ Sidewalks: north side 5 - 8’; south side 5’ State Road 104 Proposed Approach The proposed alterations maintain the street’s func tion and designation as a principal arterial while they enhance the street’s ecologic al aspec ts and improve it as a pedestrian route. Frontage requirements and additional vegetaion will strengthen the charac ter of the street and provide a comfortabl e sense of enclosure. '*(63&NOT TO SCALE 8’7’11’11’5’5’ sidewalk sidewalktraveltravelswalelandscape R.O.W 80’ travel travelturn lane &planted median 11’11’11’ curb to curb 55’ 8’ setbacksetback 8’ 2 11 SR-104 S R - 1 0 4 SR-1 04 1 00 t h Av e . W 1 00 t h Av e . W proposed road (private) required building line required building line FigVSF 4.2434USFFU4FDUJPO Table 4.2434USFFU4UBOEBSET a a’ 4.2 | Streetscape Design Standards Internal Circulation Drive Proposed Approach The proposed concept maintains the street’s function and designation as a principal arterial while enhancing the street’s ecological aspects and improving pedestrian amenities. Frontage requirements and additional vegetation will strengthen the character of the street and provide a comfortable sense of enclosure. Packet Page 566 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 38 FigVSF 4.3UI"WFOVF8/PG43 4FDUJPO-PDBUJPO.BQ Notes: 1. Where feasible, it is recommended a planted median replaceTFHNFOUTPG the existing turn lane . 2. Within the site boundary, the ROW on 100th Ave. is predominantly 70’. There are, however, a number of places where the ROW fluctuates between 70’ and 80’. T he Streetscape Standard indicated here is for a 70’ ROW. At those places on 100th Ave. where the ROW widens, the respective landscape features will be required to widen accordingly. R.O.W 70’ 6’6’11’8’ 6’5’ sidewalk sidewalkturn laneparking curb to curb 50’ 5’ setback setback 2 7’10’ travel 10’ travel swalebike lane 6’ bike lane I"WFOVF8/PG43 1 requiredbuildingline requiredbuildingline Table 4.UI"WFOVF8/PG434USFFU4UBOEBSET FigVSF 4.4UI"WFOVF8/PG434USFFU4FDUJPO 100th Avenue West north of S R - 1 0 4 Proposed Approach The proposed DPODFQUJT foc used on establishing the street as a pedestrian- centered thoroughfare. Bike lanes are established along the existing cycling route. A bioswale and street trees provide enclosure. Thoroughfare Type: commercial street with pedestrian enhancements Movement: slow R.O.W Width: 70’ Design Speed: 25 mph Landscape: east side - bioswale; west side - street trees planted in bulb outs between parking Traffic Lanes: 10’, one each way; 11’ center turn lane w/ intermittent landscaping Bike Lane: 6’ both sides of street Parking: 8’ parallel parking on west side of street Curb to Curb Distance: 50’ Sidewalks: 6’ '*(63&NOT TO SCA-& SR-104 S R - 1 0 4 SR-1 04 1 00 t h Av e . W 1 00 t h Av e . W proposed road (private) a a’ 4.2 | Streetscape Design Standards Internal Circulation Drive Packet Page 567 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 43 5.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent Purpose This section identifies the types of amenity spaces and green open space allowed within the Westgate District as indicated by the Regulating Framework (Section 2.0), and provides design standards for each type, to ensure that proposed 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 also describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each development within Westgate. Principles and Intent The intent of the proposed system is not only to establish amenity spaces that serve the 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 District plan are to promote: tBOFOWJSPONFOUUIBUFODPVSBHFTBOEGBDJMJUBUFT bicycling and pedestrian activity —”walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and tDPIFSFODFPGUIFQVCMJDSJHIUPGXBZ TFSWJOHUP assist residents, building owners and managers with understanding the relationship between the public- right-of-way and their own properties; and tTVTUBJOBCJMJUZCZQSPWJEJOHGPSUSFFTBOEQMBOUTXIJDI contribute to privacy, the reduction of noise and air pollution, shade, maintenance of the natural habitat, conservation of water and rainwater management. 5.0 | Private Investment: Amenity Spaces & Green Features Standards Regulating Framework: The Regulating Framework (see Section 2.0) is the principal tool for imple- menting the District Form-Based Codes. It provides general standards for the development of each property or lot and illustrates how each relates to the adjacent properties and street space. The Regulating Framework also defines general development standards for the building forms and land use types that are allowed within the Westgate District. The Regulating Framework includes Core Concepts, Amenity Space and Green Features Types, Street Types, Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. Additional detail on each of these standards is provided in Sections 3.0 through 5.0. Packet Page 568 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 46 5.3 | Open Space Standards The Westgate District shall include two types of open space: Amenity Space and Green Open Space. Amenity Space Amenity space is designed to provide residents of all ages with a variety of outdoor experiences. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form the places that encourage residents and visitors alike to spend time in the company of others or to find solitude in an outdoor setting. All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of parcel size as amenity space. Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is encouraged and can be part of the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in Section 5.2 and can contribute to bonus heights as defined in section 6.5. The types of amenity space include: (a) Lawns: An open space, available for unstructured recreation. A lawn may be spatially defined by land- scaping 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, groundcover, soil or mulch.) (b) Plazas: An open space, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza 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 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, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation and civic purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape 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 may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (d) Accessible Green Rooftops: Accessible green rooftops can confer significant added value to building’s occupants or to the general public with benefits ranging from enhanced educational opportunities for schools, “roofparks”, horticultural therapy, and even food production. (e) Sidewalks: The purpose of sidewalks is to provide safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian circulation along all streets, access to shopfronts and businesses, and to improve the character and identity of com- mercial and residential areas consistent with the City of Edmonds vision. New development meeting the standards of this plan are allowed to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, or other uses provided that pedestrian movement is accommodated. Green Open Space 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 that restore natural functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate District shall incorporate green open space, which includes: (a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying 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 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 District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. tAll new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. tAll new development shall plant new trees in accordance with the Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 20.13. (b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees and vegetation on slopes exceeding 15%. (c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks shall be conveyed to planted parkways. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the roadways will be directed 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 runoff can flow to open vegetated swales can also be provided, wherever feasible. Packet Page 569 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 50 6.0 | Administration and Implementation Purpose This Section identifies the administrative procedures for proposed development within the Westgate District, and provides for measures to implement the plan. Principles and Intent The intent of this section is to ensure that private development is consistent with the standards of ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code related to street, frontage, building, and public space and green feature types. 6.2 | Administrative Review A staff planner will be assigned to coordinate the technical review process for each new proposed development within the Westgate District. Staff will first review the application and evaluate whether the project meets the general goals and objectives and the specific provisions of the ReVisioning Westgate plan. Administrative Review shall be the only review needed for changes to non-conforming uses or for new development where no SEPA review is needed, provided that the proposed new development meets the provisions of the plan and conforms to the 3-story height limit or meets the requirements for a height bonus up to a total of 4 stories. However, if the proposed development requires a SEPA review or seeks approval for a height bonus up to a total of 5 stories, the development shall follow the city’s Design Review process. During the design review and approval process, staff will ensure compliance following the requirements imposed by the Architecture Design Board (ADB) or other designated authority. The staff planner will coordinate the application process with other city departments, including Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Public Works, Police and Fire departments. A trained staff member will review the Green Factor application and verify the point value calculated by the landscape professionals working for the applicant. (see Section 5.2). Figure 6.1-1: Design Review for Major Projects, adapted from Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007 SEPA determination ADB Public (Hearing Phase 2) Required First Meetings w ADB (Hearing Phase 1) Design Checklist established ADB issues Design Consider- Appeal SEPA Appeal to HE Design appeal to HE of CC (?) Detailed Design Conceptual Design Application to City Staff permit review & Design Decision Permit Approved Redesign (optional) No Yes 6.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent Development: Includes any improvement to property open to exterior view, such as buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas; whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. Proposed Development Review Process 1 to 3 Stories Administrative Review 4 Stories Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet 5 Stories Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet + Design Review Exceptions to standards for any development Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet (if over 3 stories) + Design Review Table 6.2-1: Westgate Development Review Requirements Packet Page 570 of 787 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 53 Housing Unit Size (see Section 3.4) Cumulative 4 Points Prereq.Number of units < 900 sq. ft., 10%Required Prereq.No units > 1,600 sq. ft.Required Credit 1 Number of units < 900 sq. ft. 20%1 Credit 2 Number of units 900-1000 sq. ft. 10%1 Credit 3 Number of units 1001-1200 sq. ft. 10%1 Credit 4 Number of units 1201-1400 sq. ft. 10%1 Green Building Program (see Section 3.4)4 Points Prereq.Built Green® / LEED® Certified Rating or equivalent Required Credit 1 LEED® Silver Rating / Built Green® 4-5 / Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards 1 Credit 2 LEED® Gold Rating 2 Credit 3 Passive House Standard / LEED® Platinum Rating 3 Credit 4 Living Building®4 Green Factor (see Section 2.3 and 5.2)5 Points Prereq.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 Sustainable Sites Initiative™, or equivalent 5 Amenity Space (see Section 5.3) 4 Points Prereq.Percentage of amenity space of lot size 15% Required Credit 1 Percentage of amenity space of lot size 20% 2 Credit 2 Percentage of amenity space of lot size 25% 3 Credit 3 Percentage of amenity space of lot size > 30% 4 Alternative Transportation (see Section 5.6) Cumulative 5 Points Prereq.Meet street standards, including; bikeway and pedestrian networks, and vehicle parking Required Credit 1 Car share parking, minimum 2 parking spots 1 Credit 2 Charging facility for electric cars 2 Credit 3 Indoor bicycle storage and changing facilities 1 Credit 4 Priority parking for sub-compact (Smart Cars™ and motorcycles) 1 One-story Bonus requires 8 Points Two-story Bonus requires 12 Points Points in at least 4 categories Required 6.5.3 | Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet NOTE: The 5th story height bonus is limited to parcels adjacent to steep slopes as shown in Figure 6.5-1. Packet Page 571 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Edmonds Special District Plan Presentation to Edmonds City Council June 21, 2011 City of Edmonds Green Futures Lab, University of Washington Cascade Land Conservancy Packet Page 572 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Acknowledgements Team 1 –Fall Quarter Undergrad Class –Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, Brad Shipley Team 2 –January-June Student Internships –Betsy Jacobson –Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect –Tom Jamieson –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Julie Kreigh –PhD in Built Environment –Jeanine Matthews –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Eric Scharnhorst –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Brad Shipley –B.S Degree in Community, Environment and Planning Faculty: Jill Sterrett, FAICP -Urban Design and Planning –Nancy Rottle, ASLA -Landscape Architecture Packet Page 573 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Agenda 1.Public Process 2.Connections and Green Features 3.Five Corners Plan 4.Westgate Plan 5.Overview of Form Based Code 6.Questions and Discussion Packet Page 574 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Public Process Overview Packet Page 575 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase One: Site Analysis and Online Survey •Prepared a citizen survey •Site surveys of land uses & amenities. •Parking counts •Walking distance & conditions •Mapping study results •Analysis of user friendliness Packet Page 576 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase One: Research on Exemplary Commercial Centers in the PNW COMPACT The Three C’s: CONNECTED COMPLETE Packet Page 577 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Two: Listening Session and Audience Response Surveys Brown University •Listening sessions for each site •Audience response survey •Synthesis of survey results •Form-based code case studies Packet Page 578 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Three: Design Workshop and Draft Plans •Public design workshop with local professionals •Review of what we had heard from the public •Draft site design: Life, Space, Buildings •6 teams Five Corners, 3 teams Westgate Packet Page 579 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Three: Five Corners’ Design Workshop Packet Page 580 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateDesign Workshop Westgate Packet Page 581 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Five Corners Packet Page 582 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Public Sentiment Main Topics Five Corners Westgate Building Scale 2-3 stories w/ housing 3-4 stories w/ housing Public Space Increasing public space was the most popular recommendation for improvement (all ages). Examples suggested were plazas, sitting space, green space. Walking/Biking Improve walkability by creating safe environment for people of all ages. Traffic Roundabout has general public support. Concerns about increased congestion noted. No prominent issues with automobile traffic Services Community desires better restaurants, street cafés, and a bakery. Business fronts should be at the sidewalk. Amenities Landscaping on sidewalks, street trees, and use of native plant species Packet Page 583 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase 4: Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative -Five Corners Packet Page 584 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase 4: Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative -Westgate Packet Page 585 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Pedestrian Connections Five Corners Packet Page 586 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateCycling Connections Westgate Packet Page 587 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateGreen Connections Five Corners Packet Page 588 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Stormwater Management Five Corners Five Corners Westgate Packet Page 589 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Packet Page 590 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Packet Page 591 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateIllustrative Plan Five Corners Packet Page 592 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateBuildings Five Corners Packet Page 593 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Five Corners Packet Page 594 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateIllustrative Plan Westgate Packet Page 595 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateBuildings Westgate Packet Page 596 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Westgate Packet Page 597 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Contents of the Plan/Form-Based Code 1.Introduction –Intent and Goals –Summary of the Public Process –How to Use this Code 2.The Regulating Framework –Understanding the Regulating Framework –Street Types –Frontage Types –Building Types –Public Space and Green Feature Types 3.Building Standards 4.Civic Investment: Streetscape and Public Space Standards 5.Private Investment: Gathering Spaces and Green Features S 6.Administration and Implementation Standards Packet Page 598 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Building Types 1.Rowhouse -Townhome apartments or condominiums 2.Live Work -Townhome apartments or condominiums 3.Courtyard Residential -Apartment or condominium flats 4.Side Court -Office only, Retail Mixed Use with office or residential above, or Community Service Mixed Use with office or residential above 5.Commercial Block -Retail only, Office only, Retail Mixed Use with office or residential above, or Community Service Mixed Use with office or residential above Packet Page 599 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Residential Building Types Live/WorkRowhousesCourtyard Residential Packet Page 600 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Commercial Building Types Side Court Commercial Block Packet Page 601 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Streetscape Standards Packet Page 602 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Streetscape Standards Packet Page 603 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Next Steps Tonight: City Council Presentation Summer: Planning Board to review & refine Plan and FBC Fall:Public meeting Year end: City Council decision Packet Page 604 of 787 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING! Packet Page 605 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 10 cities. He pointed out studies have found that a bicycle lane separating pedestrians results in increased traffic flow and increased pedestrian safety. He also supported agenda item 6, reduced setbacks in the Westgate area. He was involved in the Bartell project and they wanted the reduced setback to bring the building closer to the street but were unable to do so and make the parking work. The proposed amendment will allow buildings to be located closer to the street and allow parking to work. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he drove through the Westgate and Five Corners areas today enjoying the sunshine from all angles as well as the foliage and greenery. He feared the five story buildings along the road edge as proposed in the UW study would block the sun. People in Edmonds like plantings, greenery, openness, views and low buildings and he feared the proposed increase in building heights would fuel discussion during the upcoming election. Craig Dela, Edmonds, expressed support for the Complete Streets ordinance, explaining he is teaching his 4 and 5-year olds to ride their bikes in their neighborhood where the streets are wide and quiet and some streets have bike lanes. Expanding bike lanes throughout the City will allow them to ride safety in other areas. He pointed out the buses and trains that serve this area all have bicycle racks; there needs to be bicycle lanes to reach the bus and train via bicycle lanes. Mark Bailey, Edmonds, echoed the support for the Complete Streets ordinance. He and his wife walk and ride their bicycles in Edmonds. He cited the importance of using the public roads which is a big part of what makes Edmonds such a wonderful place to live. Council President Peterson apologized for the length of tonight’s agenda. Next week’s Council meeting is a workshop regarding levy options that is open to the public. 5. UPDATE ON THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PLANNING FOR FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the UW was here to present an interim report. The study was initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to plan for eventual changes in Five Corners and Westgate. This is not a redevelopment scheme but a planning approach for long term redevelopment of these areas. There have been changes in these areas such as the new Bartell’s in Westgate and refurbishing such as the PCC. This planning is an attempt to position these areas to take advantage of changes that may occur in the future so that they better match what the community wants to see. He requested the Council accept the results of the study to date and refer it to the Planning Board for formal review and deliberation on alternatives. The Planning Board will ultimately forward a product to the Council for adoption. He explained this had been a multi-month process that involved several classes and a large number of students. There was a great turnout at public meetings and good interest from residents and property owners in the areas. Jill Sterritt, Department of Urban Design and Planning, UW, acknowledged the many students involved in the process. The process began in the fall quarter 2010 as part of an undergraduate class; that team included Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, and Brad Shipley. Brad Shipley continued throughout the process and in January they hired a group of student interns that represent urban planners, landscape architects and built environment. She introduced students present tonight, Betsy Jacobson, Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect, and Jeanine Matthews, Masters in Landscape Architecture. Ms. Sterritt explained this is the sixth project she has done where they are hired by a city and they in turn hire students to work on a project. It has been a win-win for the cities and the students, many of whom said they got their full-time job based on experience gained from this work. The city also receives the work for a fraction of the cost of a consultant. Packet Page 606 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 11 Nancy Rottle, Department of Landscape Architecture, UW, displayed a timeline for the process, explaining they will continue to refine the plan and develop it into a form based code working with the Planning Board. The first phase of the process began with a citizen survey that was available on the City’s website for four months. At the same time students conducted site surveys particularly looking at walkability, parking at the two centers and existing conditions. Their partners at Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) provided examples of exemplary commercial centers throughout the Pacific NW with the goal of making communities that are complete, compact and connected. She recognized Jeff Aken, CLC, for his participation in the process. The second phase included two public listening sessions, one for Westgate and one for Five Corners. These were open houses to listen, gather information and learn from the public regarding how they used the centers. Instant polling was also used to tally visual preferences. The students also began researching form based code and held meetings with property owners to learn their desires. The third phase included a Saturday design workshop attended by over 50 people and volunteer professionals where they collected information about preferences and realities regarding the two centers. The approach used was life space building that allows participants to explore the type of life, activities, spaces that support that life, and buildings that form and activate the spaces within the two centers. Six teams worked on Five Corners and three worked on Westgate. The students compiled the information developed by each team. She displayed examples of concepts developed by the Five Corners and Westgate teams. From those nine alternatives, the students developed two alternatives for each center. The alternatives were presented to the public at a public forum and included examples of life space for each center. The public was asked to provide feedback regarding the qualities they liked in each alternative. She explained form based code will define the qualities the public and the City would like developers to provide as they develop. It is a more flexible approach to development but tends to provide more of the desired physical qualities. The public preferred 2-3 stories with housing for Five Corners and 3-4 stories at Westgate. In both areas, the public felt it was important to increase public space with the most popular recommendations being plazas, sitting space and green space. The public was interested in improving walkability in both centers. At Five Corners there was initial concern about congestion and traffic speeds due to the roundabout; as information was provided, the fears were allayed. Services people wanted include restaurants, street cafes, bakery, and overwhelmingly preferred buildings at the street front and cared a great deal about landscaping and the use of native plants. Two alternatives for each center were then presented to the EDC at three meetings. She described the alternatives for Five Corners; both are oriented around the planned roundabout. Public space around the roundabout was envisioned; in one alternative the building fronts the roundabout and in the other buildings formed courtyards. The alternatives illustrate different building heights; in one 2-3 stories and the other 3-4 stories. Two alternatives were also developed for Westgate. Taller buildings are at the corner and there is internal circulation. She described the location of commercial, residential, and office use on the sites. She displayed maps identifying needs and opportunities for better pedestrian and bicycle connections to the center as well as to schools and parks and better connected green space that can enhance walkability and habitat. The centers are envisioned as having slightly less parking as it is expected people will get there via means other than driving vehicles. The studies found Edmonds has a separated stormwater system which although this prevents overflows, polluted stormwater continues to enter Puget Sound and likely in the future the NPDES permit will require cities to treat their stormwater before discharge. They also made recommendations to encourage Packet Page 607 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 12 green features in the two commercial centers that would help treat stormwater such as bioswales, green roofs, and permeable paving. Those features could be integrated into open space the public wants. Ms. Sterritt explained with the input of the EDC and Planning Board at joint meetings, the preferred elements from the two alternatives were combined into an illustrative plan for each site. She emphasized the plans were examples of how development could occur on the site after form based code is developed. The plans do not dictate or determine a specific outcome. She displayed the illustrative plan for Five Corners that emphasizes open space for public gathering particularly around the roundabout. It emphasized mixed use with low cost smaller dwelling units and affordable housing in the upper stories. A recent EDC decision allows for three stories near the roundabout with one additional possible story, a total of four, if the developer provides additional amenities such as green features or affordable housing. On the periphery, the base height is two stories and a possible one story bonus. Ms. Sterritt displayed the building massing plan for Five Corners related to the illustrative site plan that provides an indication of building heights and types of uses. Commercial is typically on the ground floor, residential on upper floors and office uses. She reviewed life space options for Five Corners such as smaller shops in plazas, buildings fronting on plazas and streets, row houses or life/work units, and a variety of uses and housing options. Ms. Sterritt displayed the illustrative site plan for Westgate which permits three stories overall; additional stories require a development agreement. The EDC recommended one additional story be allowed for meeting certain criteria and a second additional story for meeting further criteria. The EDC emphasized five story buildings would relate to the topography and be located primarily on the periphery of the site where there are steep hillsides so there is less impact on surrounding residential uses and less impact on the street. She displayed the building massing for Westgate, highlighting features such as the internal street and connections to the residential area. There is some massing around the intersection as well as key open spaces to highlight the intersection. There are a great deal of residential uses to the south. She reviewed life space options for Westgate such as bicycle lanes on both SR-104 and 100th. She relayed the public’s preference to retain the PCC and QFC. She noted redevelopment of those uses could provide the opportunity for a green roof. Ms. Sterritt reviewed the contents of a form based code that includes, 1) introduction with intent and goals, summary of the public process, and how to use the code; 2) regulating framework that addresses street types, frontage types, building types and public space and green feature types; 3) building standards, 4) civic investment – streetscape and public space standards; 5) private investment – gathering spaces and green features, and 6) administration and implementation standards. She acknowledged this was a different approach than the typical zoning code that establishes setback, height restrictions, and parking requirements. It includes those but addresses how the public space is arranged and how buildings are massed and formed. They are recommending five building types: residential building types includes rowhouse, live/work, courtyard residential; commercial building types include side court and commercial block. She displayed photo examples of each building type. Ms. Sterritt displayed and reviewed examples of streetscape standards for Five Corners and Westgate. She requested the Council refer the plan to the Planning Board to review and refine the plan and the form based code. Additional public meetings will be held and she anticipated a complete plan for each site will be presented to the Council by year end. Councilmember Buckshnis, liaison to the EDC, agreed this has been a very interesting process; the students have worked very hard and produced a great product. She relayed a resident’s concern that the City Council did not understand “spot rezone.” She asked why a form based code was not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered both areas are zoned BN. The form based code they are developing would apply to the BN zone. They are not establishing zoning for individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis Packet Page 608 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 13 summarized they were establishing a template to specify what was desired in certain areas. Ms. Sterritt explained spot zoning specifies what happens on a single parcel; the form based code would apply within the BN zone. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged Ms. Johnson’s concerns and asked whether those had been taken into consideration. Ms. Sterritt advised they are looking closely at that. The examples provided are illustrative; they will be working with Public Works staff to refine them to ensure they are consistent with the Council’s decision regarding setbacks and/or Complete Streets. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a development agreement is not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered in most jurisdictions certain things can be agreed to via a development agreement. The things that can be allowed in a development agreement would be established by the form based code. A developer would need to meet the code requirements for additional height and in order to obtain the additional height, complete the development agreement public process. Councilmember Petso observed the street standard for 100th south of the corner shows it reduced to three lanes, one lane each way and a turn lane. The current configuration is two lanes each way plus a turn lane. She asked whether a level of service analysis had been conducted to study the effect of reducing the travel lanes. Ms. Sterritt emphasized the street standards were very preliminary. Staff also pointed out there are four travel lanes in that area. There was some discussion that that configuration may be workable if it is needed to accommodate bike lanes. Further discussion is planned; this is only an initial effort to look at the right-of-way and how it could accommodate bike lanes, bioswales, parking, etc. Councilmember Petso observed if a travel lane, bike lane, a safe pedestrian area was desired, buildings should not yet be moved closer to the street until the right-of-way has been measured to determine if all those things can be accommodated. Ms. Sterritt responded those are two separate issues. They are considering the right-of-way as it exists and then the amount of setback and the buildings. They are not considering expansion of the right-of-way; they are working within the existing right-of-way. If there is interest in expanding the right-of-way and acquiring additional right-of-way, that is a different question and not what their plan assumes. Mr. Chave commented there has also been discussion about alternate routing for bicycles such as taking them off SR-104 and onto the internal streets through the development. The cross sections that were displayed were simply possibilities. Councilmember Petso asked how many residences the Westgate plan envisioned. Ms. Jacobson answered 650 [this was later clarified to be 650 people and 282 dwelling units]. Councilmember Petso observed the public put a high priority on public space. She expressed concern that for 650 residences, the only park area was approximately the size of her side yard. Ms. Sterritt identified park and plaza/open space areas throughout the Westgate plan, noting those areas were envisioned as hardscape with landscape elements. She agreed this plan does not have any large expanses of green space or park. One of the things that has been discussed is the City providing underground parking with a park above which could foster redevelopment. Councilmember Petso observed there was no park within a mile of the Westgate center and it may be appropriate to consider some form of recreation for the proposed 650 residences. Ms. Sterritt clarified it would be 650 people and 282 dwelling units. Under the direction of the EDC and Planning Board, smaller dwelling units were assumed for this center, a 900 square foot average, with the idea of encouraging young families and seniors who are downsizing and providing places they can live affordably in the City. Councilmember Petso asked if the plan was driven by the EDC or the citizens. Ms. Sterritt stated the plan was initiated by the EDC but there has been an extensive, hands-on public process to gather public input. Packet Page 609 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 14 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about traffic from 282 dwelling units that are envisioned at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered development would occur over a long period of time, it would likely not be developed by a single developer. The level of traffic created is basically background as the largest volume is through traffic. It is hoped more of the traffic will stop at the Westgate center. Given overall levels of traffic on SR-104, traffic generated by the development would be minor. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed that piece has not yet been investigated. Mr. Chave answered that is part of the review that will occur at the Planning Board. Five Corners is somewhat different because the Comprehensive Plan already envisions four stories and the Transportation Plan considered up to four stories. The long term traffic needs at Five Corners was one of the things that drove the roundabout. He advised a Transportation Plan update was planned for next year that would consider updated land uses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the intent of reducing the traffic lanes was to provide additional space for sidewalks and alternate mobility surfaces. She pointed out the plan adds more vehicles with less roadway space than exists today. Ms. Sterritt answered in most areas the travel lanes are not reduced; the possibility of reducing from four travel lanes to two travel lanes with a common turn lane is only considered on 100th south of SR-104. In all other areas there are the same number of travel lanes although they may be slightly narrower. On mixed use sites with a variety of uses including residential, the number of trips per unit are typically less because residents can walk to uses on the site. Mr. Chave pointed out both areas are well served by transit and to the extent that walking can be encouraged, that will reduce traffic. He pointed out in the sample cross sections, the reduction to three lanes does not occur at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was difficult to understand how everything will work together. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the number of units at Westgate was determined, envisioning the free market would determine the number of units. Ms. Sterritt agreed, explaining 282 was determined by the building footprints and number of residential floors to provide a square footage of residential which was then divided by 900 square feet per unit. Because this is form based code and not a development plan, the market, property owners and developers will determine the number of units. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the plan is based on existing buildings, however, as the economy improves, he envisioned some buildings will be removed. Ms. Sterritt responded the majority of buildings in the plan are new, developed at a reasonable upper level of development with a couple exceptions due to favored uses that people wanted to retain. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the 900 square foot average size of residences. Ms. Sterritt answered 900 square feet per unit was used due to the EDC’s interest in smaller units. Councilmember Plunkett responded he thought the EDC was interested in economic development; if they want economic development, telling a developer he can have 900 square foot units will retard economic development because most developers do not want to build a 900 square foot condominium. Ms. Sterritt answered the plan does not dictate the size of units. Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was not a plan but to have the marketplace to build it. Ms. Sterritt explained they wanted to create building envelopes and standards that make good public places. Within those building envelopes, the property owners and developers will have a great deal of flexibility to determine what the market will bear. Mr. Chave recalled the EDC discussed target populations. They hoped these urban areas would attract young professionals and smaller households that would add to the vibrancy and activity in the area. Given that idea, the smaller housing units make sense. Ultimately the marketplace will determine the size of the units. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Packet Page 610 of 787 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 15 Councilmember Petso asked if the process included a market study. Mr. Chave stated a market analysis was conducted and factored into the plan. For example the market study indicated underground parking probably would not pencil out in these locations. That dictated more surface and tuck-under parking. Councilmember Petso asked if the market analysis commented on the feasibility of mixed use. She noted the Unocal mixed use development has only residential and mixed use downtown is condominiums over empty space. Mr. Chave stated the market analysis indicated mixed use was very viable at both locations. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the motion, relaying his interest in creativity in City planning which in his opinion has not occurred in the four years he has been on the Council. The downtown stepback has not generated any development. Before he was on the City Council, he actively promoted student involvement in City planning. He recalled the designs developed by the students at Edmonds-Woodway High School for the Skippers and Antique Mall properties provided very valuable information. Five Corners and Westgate were identified as centers where development could occur. This has been an exciting and vibrant process for the residents and the public meetings have been well attended. He was eager for the Planning Board to begin their review. MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG SR-104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG 100TH AVENUE WEST. THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the current BN zoning requires buildings be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the street front which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the current direction being developed for Westgate and Five Corners. The current BN setback pushes buildings into the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between buildings and the street. It is hoped that reducing the minimum setback will push buildings closer to the street and allow improvement of the street front and pedestrian amenities provided on private property adjacent to the street front. The proposed change would apply only to the Westgate area. He displayed an aerial photograph of Westgate that shows buildings are typically set well back inside property lines. Mr. Chave provided photographs of the Bartell/Starbucks development. On the 100th side, the businesses are setback from the street with a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking between the sidewalk and building; the traditional design encouraged by the existing BN zoning requirement. As a result, anyone walking in that area must cross the parking/drive aisle to reach the building front. On the SR-104 side of that development, the building is approximately 9 feet from the existing right-of-way. Placing the building closer to the right-of-way allows the parking to be moved to the side and the street front to be enhanced with walkways and landscaping. The SR-104 side of that building is what the setback as recommended by the Planning Board would provide opportunity for. He explained under the existing BN zone, the SR-104 side is non-conforming. Mr. Chave explained the recommendation is only for the BN zone for the Westgate area. There is ample policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center with regard to accommodating transit and pedestrian access and providing pedestrian walkways. The design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan speak to buildings oriented to the street front with pedestrian access. The UW plan contains setbacks similar to those recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Reduced street setback only applies to Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 611 of 787 CITY OF EDMONDS REVISIONING WESTGATE Special District Plan Minutes of Public Listening Session Brackett Room, City Hall, 3rd Floor, 121 – Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds January 25, 2011 Stephen Clifton, Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Clifton explained that the City’s Comprehensive and Economic Development Plans identify neighborhood centers that have specific planning policies that apply to commercial areas such as Westgate and Five Corners. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) has identified completing the planning and implementation process for these key neighborhood centers as one of the six recommended high-priority items for the City. The City Council expressed their support by passing Resolution 1224 and by providing funding to move the projects forward. Mr. Clifton advised that, in addition to staff, the Special District Project Team includes faculty and graduate students from the University of Washington’s Urban Design and Planning and Green Futures Lab and representatives from the Cascade Land Conservancy, Planning Board and Economic Development Commission. He reported that Phase 1 of the project was conducted last fall and included a survey of citizens (about 360 citizens responded) and an inventory (uses, amenities, buildings, etc.) of the two commercial centers by the University of Washington students. Mr. Clifton announced that Phase 2 of the project is underway and will involve several opportunities for public participation. The Special District Project Team will host a series of meetings to solicit input from citizens. They are eager to hear from the public about the types of uses they want to see, the size and scale of redevelopment, etc. Their goal is to collect as much input as possible, particularly from the citizens living near the commercial areas. He said the Project Team considers the citizens to be the fifth member of the Team because their input will shape the outcome of future development regulations. He explained that Phase 3 of the project is scheduled to begin during the second quarter of the year when the Project Team forwards a recommendation to the Planning Board for consideration. The Planning Board would conduct a series of public meetings with the Project Team and hold a formal public hearing prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would review the proposal and take final action on the recommendation. Mr. Clifton introduced Jill Sterrett, University of Washington (UW) Professor and Affiliate Instructor with the Department of Urban Design and Planning; Jeff Aken, Cascade Agenda Cities Project Manager, Cascade Land Conservancy; and Nancy Rottle, UW Associate Professor with the Department of Landscape Architecture and Director of the Green Futures Research and Design Lab. He explained that these individuals were present to review the Project Team’s work and solicit feedback from the public. He also recognized the presence of Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager, Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Director, and Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant. Ms. Sterrett reviewed the agenda for the meeting noting that the Project Team would provide a brief presentation, followed by a polling exercise to collect the audience’s responses to specific questions. The last half of the meeting would provide an opportunity for the citizens to visit the various stations set up around the room, provide their specific input about how they use the site and share ideas about what they would like to see in the future. She noted that each of the stations would be manned by University of Washington graduate and PhD students in Planning and Landscape Architecture and the Built Environment and other students as part of a public engagement and business involvement class. The students were Packet Page 612 of 787 responsible for collecting data of the neighborhood commercial centers via a citizen survey and an inventory of the two areas. Ms. Sterrett emphasized that there would be additional opportunities for the public to be involved in the process over the next few months. Another public workshop related to design ideas is currently scheduled for February 26th. In March, the Project Team would work with the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission to refine some draft alternatives for redevelopment of the Westgate Commercial Center. These meetings would also be open to the public, and the public would specifically be invited to provide comment again at a meeting in April. Workshops with the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission and a public hearing before the Planning Board would take place in May and June. She specifically invited the members of the audience to participate in the on-line citizen survey, which is open until mid February. She noted that materials from tonight’s workshop would be posted on the City’s website. Ms. Sterrett explained that the students conducted a user friendliness survey of the Westgate Commercial Center, using the following criteria: PROTECTION • Protection against traffic and accidents (traffic accidents, fear of traffic, other accidents) • Protection against crime and violence (lived in/used, street life, street watchers, overlapping functions in space and time) • Protection against unpleasant sense experiences (wind/draft, rain/’snow, cold/heat, pollution, dust, glair, noise) COMFORT • Possibilities for walking (room for walking, layout of streets, interesting facades, no obstacles, good surfaces) • Possibilities for standing/staying (attractive edges, defined spots for staying, supports for staying) • Possibilities for sitting (zones for sitting, benches for resting) • Possibilities for seeing (seeing distances, unhindered views, interesting views, lighting) • Possibilities for hearing/talking (low noise level, bench arrangements, talkscapes) ENJOYMENT • Scale (dimension of buildings and space in observance of the important human dimensions, related to sense, movement, size and behavior) • Possibilities for enjoying positive aspects of climate (sun/shade, warmth/coolness, breeze/ventilation) • Aesthetic qualities/positive sense experiences (good design and good detailing, views/vistas, trees, plants, water) Ms. Sterrett summarized that, based on the 12 criteria, the Westgate Commercial Center scored very low in terms of user friendliness. The students found that neither Five Corners nor Westgate reached the user-friendliness level of Downtown Edmonds. She emphasized that it is not the Project Team’s intent to make the Westgate Commercial Center just like Downtown Edmonds, but Downtown Edmonds could be used as good examples of what makes a commercial center convenient, comfortable and user-friendly. She provided a map to illustrate the connection between the Westgate Commercial Center and Downtown Edmonds. She noted that the entire Westgate area is in a key location as people approach downtown Edmonds coming down SR-104. Mr. Aken said it has been a pleasure to work with City staff and the University of Washington students and faculty on the Westgate Special District Plan. He explained that Cascade Land Conservancy’s efforts focus on conserving great lands and creating great communities. Their goal is to engage citizens in discussions about how communities grow and develop, how to protect the quality of life, and how to preserve lands. He reminded the audience that the purpose of the meeting is to listen to what the citizens want to see in the Westgate Commercial Center in terms of design and changes. He explained that when planning for future redevelopment of the Westgate Commercial Center, they should consider opportunities to enhance public space and the neighborhood identity, connect to surrounding neighborhoods and amenities, make it easier to walk, bike and use transit, provide opportunities for sensible parking, and allow for a mixture of uses, including the potential for housing. It is also important to consider opportunities for making neighborhood centers more complete, compact and connected. He provided the following questions to consider in each of the categories: COMPLETE • How can the public realm be enhanced? Packet Page 613 of 787 • What mixture of uses would best serve the community’s needs and help them do what they need to do? • How can neighborhood identity be created and/or enhanced? COMPACT • What is the best way to use the land to make redevelopment efficient and walkable? • How can redevelopment be more environmentally friendly? • Are their opportunities to support transit? • How can they create a more active street life? CONNECTED • How can the residential neighborhoods be better connected to the local shops? • How can parks and open space be better connected? • How can transportation options be increased so people feel safe walking, biking, taking the bus or driving to the site? Mr. Aken emphasized the importance of designing a neighborhood center that meets the needs of everyone. He reported that approximately 20% of the population in Edmonds is under 18 years of age, and 20% is 64 years or older. About 35% of the citizens of Edmonds do not drive for various reasons. It is important to consider how to make the Westgate Commercial Center work for everyone. He provided the following examples of what cities in the area are doing to improve their commercial centers and make them more user-friendly: • The Town Center development in Mill Creek offers a good example of a public gathering place. It includes an open-air plaza where people can meet with neighbors. The Plaza can provide a sense of place, and slow the pace so people are more comfortable. • A development in Burien provides an example of how open space can be utilized as a public gathering place to host outdoor events such as a farmer’s market. He noted that distinctive lighting features were used to provide a sense of place. • The Town Center development in Mill Creek also provides a good example of scale. It includes 1 and 1½-story buildings that are used for primarily office and commercial. Some parking is provided on the street in front of the businesses, and a separate parking lot is also provided behind the businesses. There is a variety of architecture to break up the appearance from the street. In addition, street trees and other landscaping, as well as awnings, were added to create a more user friendly environment. • A development in Queen Anne provides another example of appropriate scale. It includes development up to three stories high, with residential units constructed above the commercial space. This is an example of how it is possible to mix housing and commercial uses together. The parking is primarily provided by an underground parking garage, but there is some surface parking, as well. • A development in Old Bellevue provides yet another good example of scale. The buildings are up to 4 stories tall, with the 4th stories set back more to break up the scale from the street level. There is a mixture of heights to break up the scale. Retail uses are located on the ground floor, with awnings to provide weather protection. Different colored sidewalks separate the pedestrian areas from the street and parking, and the curb bulbs make it more comfortable for pedestrians to cross the street. Parking is provided both in front and behind the buildings. • A Mercer Island development provides a good example of the types of design features that can be included as part of the streetscape. In this area, a median was placed in the middle of the street. The median includes landscaping, but also a pedestrian refuge for people to safely stand while attempting to cross the street. Awnings on the fronts of buildings provide a more comfortable pedestrian experience. Street lights and bike racks also add to the design. • An example in Burien illustrates more options for streetscape improvements. A few parking spaces were eliminated in order to accommodate a wider sidewalk in some areas to provide a place for landscaping and for people to sit. Taller buildings are located on one side of the street, with lower buildings on the other. This allows for a mixture of rents and opportunities for various business sizes. • An example of a Portland development illustrates good ideas for parking and includes both surface and street parking. It incorporates pedestrian features into the parking areas so that people feel safe walking through the parking lots to reach the businesses. It also incorporates landscaping to minimize stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces. Packet Page 614 of 787 • A development in Portland also provides a good example of using stormwater and green infrastructure to make a project more environmentally friendly. There are ways to treat stormwater on site using pedestrian-friendly green areas for people to enjoy. • Examples from Portland also illustrate good connections between bicycles, pedestrians and transit. It is important to make it easy for people to use all modes of transportation, including private vehicles. Amenities include bike racks, bike lanes, complete streets, signage, and transit infrastructure that is easy and comfortable to use. • An example from Edmonds illustrates how public art can be used to create a sense of place. Gathering places are often the place that people know and identify with, and art can be used to make these areas stand out at a pedestrian and human scale. Mr. Aken emphasized that the citizens are the 5th stake holder in the Westgate Special District Planning Process. It is important for them to provide their ideas throughout the process so that the neighborhood’s views are clearly reflected in the end product. Brad Shipley, University of Washington, led the audience through a polling process. The following are the questions posed and the responses received: What is your age group? A. 17 or under (1) B. 18 to 24 (0) C. 25-34 (0) D. 35-44 (3) E. 45-54 (5) F. 55-64 (6) G. 65-74 (4) H. 75-84 (4) I. 85+ (0) J. Prefer not to answer (0) How many years have you lived in Edmonds? A. 0-5 (1) B. 6-10 (5) C. 11-15 (1) D. 16-20 (1) E. 21-25 (1) F. 25+ (10) G. I live in Esperance, Shoreline or Woodway (3) H. I Live in Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace (0) I. I do not live in the area (0) How many children live in your home? A. 0 (13) B. 1 (3) C. 2 (4) D. 3 (0) E. 4+ (0) F. Prefer not to answer (0) What type of dwelling do you live in? A. Single-family (20 B. Duplex (0) C. Multi-family (2) Packet Page 615 of 787 Assuming perfect conditions, what is your preferred method of getting to Westgate? A. Walking (5) B. Biking (6) C. Bus (0) D. Auto (7) E. Other (1) Approximately how long would it take for you to walk from your home to Westgate? A. Live there (2) B. 5-10 minutes (2) C. 10-15 minutes (3) D. 20 minutes (2) E. 30 minutes (9) F. 45 minutes (2) G. 60 minutes (0) H. Don’t know (0) In your opinion, what is the greatest barrier to walking? A. Nothing, I enjoy walking (1) B. Time/living too far away (7) C. Inconvenience (1) D. Protection from weather (0) E. Unpleasant walking environment (2) F. Fear for safety (3) G. Carrying purchased items home (4) H. Running other errands (0) I. Steep hills (1) J. Lack of lighting (0) Mr. Shipley noted that this response confirms the data collected as part of the on-line survey. A member of the audience asked if they had considered that people may ride their bike because it is faster and not because they don’t enjoy walking. If we were to make changes to Westgate, which of these streetscape treatments do you think are most appropriate? A. Street trees (4) B. Landscaping and activities (15) C. Bioswales/stormwater treatment (1) D. Art elements (0) Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk approaching the site, what type of interface from the sidewalk would you like to have with the businesses? A. Asphalt business fronts (2) B. Business fronting on the street (2) C. Businesses fronting on street with business activity on the street (17) If changes are made to Westgate, what type of gathering space do you think most appropriate? A. Benches (2) B. Water activities for children (3) C. Plaza (7) D. Artistic setting (6) E. Water feature (2) Which building scale do you feel is most appropriate for Westgate? A. 1-2 stories (5) Packet Page 616 of 787 B. 3-4 stories (11) C. 5 stories (3) Packet Page 617 of 787 Revisioning Westgate -- Special District Plan Minutes of Public Listening Session January 25, 2011 Page 7 What would most draw you to Westgate? A. Retail shopping (2) B. Higher quality restaurants (5) C. People spaces such as plazas and outdoor dining (3) D. Better lighting (0) E. Activities for children (2) F. Improved architecture and aesthetics (2) G. Improved walkability (2) H. Fewer vacancies (3) I. None of the above (1) J. Do nothing (0) Mr. Clifton observed that with this last question, it might be helpful to allow respondents to identify the top three things they would like to see at Westgate as opposed to just one response. This would allow them to rate the responses and a few items would likely rise to the top of the list. Mr. Shipley noted that the on-line survey allows people to identify their top three preferences. In addition, participants at the Shopping/Service, Socializing and Housing Station would have an opportunity to provide more specific information about what they would like to see at Westgate. Ms. Rottle announced that the second half of the meeting would be structured similar to an open house to obtain more detailed feedback from the participants. The expert student team has worked hard to set up a series of stations that are all about listening. The goal of this exercise is to find out what the residents of Edmonds know about Westgate and what they would like to see there. Edmonds residents are the experts about their City, and the Project Team wants to learn from them. She invited the participants to visit all of the stations. She encouraged them to share their thoughts both orally and in writing. She described the five stations as follows: • Getting Around. Two maps have been provided at this station so that participants can draw the routes they take to get to and from Westgate and what they would like to see. • Greening the Site and Environment. At this station participants would be asked to share their ideas for how to make the design and planning more environmentally friendly. This station provides an opportunity for people to look at the larger neighborhood and identify the problems, opportunities and solutions. The goal is to be better connected to habitat and parks and to provide better stormwater treatment options. Participants will be asked to share their ideas for stormwater control, more sustainable energy, etc. A wide range of environmental options have been identified, but participants should feel free to add more. • Shopping/Services, Socializing and Housing. At this station each participant will have an opportunity to identify their three to five highest priorities for shopping/services, socializing and housing options in Westgate. • What is Your Neighborhood? At this station participants will be invited to share the history of their neighborhood and how the commercial center can contribute to a sense of community. Participants will also be invited to identify things they like and dislike about their neighborhood. • Wish Center. At this station participants will have an opportunity write down their one wish for Westgate. Ms. Rottle explained that the information would be collated and used by the Project Team to prepare better maps for the next public meeting where they would report back on what they heard from the citizens to date. The February 26th workshop would be even more interactive with good maps and building blocks. Participants would be asked to help construct different alternatives for what Westgate might look like. Based on the information they receive at the next public meeting, the Project Team would prepare larger-scale design options. A member of the audience asked how those who do not live in the Westgate area should respond to the questions posed at each of the stations. Ms. Rottle encouraged those who do not live in the Westgate area to share their thoughts and ideas, too. She summarized that a person does not need to live near Westgate; they just need to care what happens. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A WORKSHOP SETTING AT 7:30 P.M. WHERE PARTICIPANTS VISITED THE VARIOUS STATIONS SET UP AROUND THE ROOM. THE MEETING CONCLUDED AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M. Packet Page 618 of 787 Westgate Potential DevelopmentAssuming broad reduction in heights as shown Plan 4-5 stories Plan 3-4 storiesNew Retail 249,700 199,760New Office 167,600 134,080Service/B&B 32,400 25,920Exist SF Comm 54,700 54,700Live Work 24 19New Residential 180 144 Reduction in ultimate development:Total Commercial SF 504,400 414,460 18%Total Res Units 204 163 20% Packet Page 619 of 787 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 0 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 1 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 2 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 3 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 4 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 5 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 6 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 7 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 8 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 9 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 0 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 1 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 2 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 3 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 4 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 5 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 6 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 7 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 8 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 9 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 0 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 1 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 2 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 3 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 4 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 5 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 6 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 7 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 8 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 9 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 0 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 1 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 2 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 3 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 4 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 5 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 6 o f 7 8 7 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 7 o f 7 8 7 CITY OF EDMONDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES July 16, 2014 The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chair Witenberg in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bruce Witenberg, Chair Kevin Garrett, Vice Chair John Dewhirst Darrol Haug Roger Hertrich Nicole Hughes Doug Purcell John Rubenkonig Gail Sarvis Michael Schindler Rich Senderoff Darlene Stern Douglas Swartz Teresa Wippel (Arrived 6:09 p.m.) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Debbie Matteson Nathan Proudfoot Finis Tupper PLANNING BOARD LIAISON Phil Lovell ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Councilmember Strom Peterson Councilmember Kristiana Johnson PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON Bruce Faires STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Jeannie Dines, Recorder PUBLIC PRESENT Natalie Shippen 1. OPENING REMARKS Chair Witenberg announced Commissioners Matteson, Proudfoot and Tupper have excused absences. 2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Chair Witenberg requested Agenda Item 6 be moved to follow Item 3. 3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 18, 2014 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONER DEWHIRST MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PURCELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2014. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Commissioner Wippel was not present for the vote.) 6. PLANNING BOARD RETREAT Packet Page 658 of 787 Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Planning Board held their annual retreat on July 9. Agenda items included getting to know the new Planning Board Members, a demonstration regarding digital documents on the City’s website and a presentation regarding the Edmond Community Development Code (EDC) update. The Planning Board and the City Council had a joint meeting earlier this year to discuss the update and the Council provided direction to the Planning Board regarding issues to work on and priorities. Staff reviewed with the Planning Board, 1) what the development code is and its contents, and 2) concerns that many things in the code are outdated and the code needs to be cleaned up to address inconsistencies. The Planning Board discussed principles important to them and developed a list of key principles and objectives: Key Principles • Consistency with current state law • Consistency with Comprehensive Plan • Provide predictability for developers and community • Provide some flexibility • Clear user friend language and format • Recognition of property rights • Enforceability and compliance • Sustainable development oriented Key Objectives • Ensure reasonable and clear process for all actions • Provide expanded and up-to-date definitions • Encourage appropriate development • Protect critical areas and shorelines • Recognition of diverse neighborhoods and their characteristics • Pedestrian and bicycle friendly access • Low impact stormwater management • Transit development in key locations Ms. Hope explained the code update is expected to occur over time and oversight of the update is one of her responsibilities. Some aspects are moving forward in the short term such as the Tree Code, the Critical Areas Code Update and regulations regarding subdivisions. She expects to have a draft Tree Code completed by the end of year and efforts are underway to hire a consultant to assist with the Critical Areas update. Once she determines aspects of the Code that need to be updated, she will develop a schedule, and seek further input from the Planning Board and City Council. She was also interested in feedback from the EDC as well as other interested organizations and citizens. Planning Board Member Phil Lovell relayed his request that the PowerPoint Ms. Hope presented to the Planning Board regarding the key principles and objectives be made available to the public. The Planning Board discussed consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and agreed the code needs to be updated prior to revising processes. With regard to sustainability, he relayed information provided by Planning Board Chair Todd Cloutier that Edmonds residents and businesses spend $38-40 million/year on electricity. The highest utility consumption is water. Commissioner Rubenkonig asked if there was data regarding usage five years ago. 4. BUSINESS DISTRICTS ENHANCEMENT SUB-GROUP UPDATE – RE-VISIONING WESTGAGE WHITE PAPER PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND ACTION Commissioner Purcell explained the Business Districts Enhancement Sub-group was asked to prepare a document that could be a position paper for the EDC on the Planning Board’s recommendation to the City Packet Page 659 of 787 Council regarding the proposed Westgate Plan. He explained the concept originated with the EDC in 2009. The City Council approved funding for a study that was conducted by a team from the University Washington. The UW team’s extensive process focused on two neighborhoods, Five Corners and Westgate, and included the City Council, the Planning Board, the EDC and a great deal of community input. This presentation is only regarding Westgate; the Planning Board made significant modifications in the final proposal to address concerns such as maximum heights and setbacks from SR-104. He reviewed the sections of the white paper: 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. The Westgate Public Process 4. Why Westgate: What’s Different this Time? • Predetermined, Point Based Incentives • Form-Based Code 5. Conclusion COMMISSION PURCELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUBENKONIG, THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVE THE PROPOSED WHITE PAPER BY THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS ENHANCEMENT SUBGROUP AS ITS POSITION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE COUNCIL IN THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THE WESTGATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Commissioners’ comments regarding the white paper and the Westgate Plan included the following: • The white paper does not reflect that citizen input has not been 100% positive. Suggest including a comment in the white paper that the Westgate plan puts flexibility in the hands of staff and there is potential for things to happen that are not clearly defined • It is not the EDC’s place to recognize negative comments in the white paper; there will be opportunity for those with concerns to make them known to the City Council • Property owners can implement the new standards in the Plan over time • Form-based code is a step toward giving the City opportunity for input on dimensions other than just the building box and use • Form-based code is necessary to ensure future development embodies the community • Form based code allows flexibility and discussion regarding how to make a proposal consistent with community’s values • Edmonds a unique place, but does not have unique problems • Plan creates a tool that provides flexibility and possible solutions for mixed use development for more people-scale places • Plan could result in really good development, puts tools in the hands of the Mayor, Council and Staff • Citizens will make their concerns heard at City Council • Worth giving it a try; it has been discussed/studied for four years • Change in Edmonds is excruciatingly painful, no giant leaps, small baby steps • The last zoning change in Westgate and the Edmonds Way Corridor did not result in what the Planning Board envisioned the language would produce • Current regulations are not producing what we want. Need do something so that the development we want occurs • Walgreens in Greenwood blends into the community; Edmonds does not have the tools to do that • Community wants change whether they know it or not • White paper is the EDC’s position to the Council and needs to be taken seriously • There has been substantial opportunity for input and there has been substantial input. The recent modifications by the Planning Board address complaints and concerns. Packet Page 660 of 787 • Characteristics of the area such as proximity to neighborhoods and SR-104 represent substantial opportunity including a new type of development the City does not currently have – community village mixed use • Provides opportunity and impetus for new development to allow the City to continue to grow, prosper and evolve • Existing code has not achieved what was envisioned • New investment will bring new revenue which is a key part of the EDC’s purpose • Regulations in the Plan provide an improved structure for managing redevelopment in that area, a structure that is more flexible, more targeted but not arbitrary • Members of the EDC have participated in numerous opportunities to shape the Plan since 2009 • If changes are not made to development regulations, it will prevent the change that needs to happen in the community and stifle what people envision • Demographics are changing, it is incumbent to prepare for the future • Plan provides flexibility and thoughtful consideration to each property and how form-based code would affect that property versus one size fits all • Form-based code provides flexibility and a great opportunity to build what is appropriate for that area • Do not want Edmonds to look like Lynnwood but without a plan, the City is shrink-wrapped, stifled and stagnated which leads to deterioration • To do nothing is move backward and we will lose the opportunity to provide what future demographics are asking for • Without change to attract future changes in demographics, taxes go up and the City deteriorates • Westgate deserves far better than it is receiving • The two developments that have occurred prove the code needs to be changed • Input at the charrettes indicate the community wants walkable, green, community gathering places, welcoming area • Understand not everyone like every program but we need to move forward • Hope the white paper assist in public acceptance of change; involvement of a citizen commission in the development of the Plan and the process lends credibility • White paper provides consumable way for the average citizen to understand the changes in a user friendly manner. • Commend the Planning Board for the hours they spent listening to objections and answering each one in fair manner • Access to white paper will be helpful to citizens • Plan provides an opportunity to package the best of downtown and transplant it to Westgate • Provides gateway to Edmonds and a welcoming front to downtown. • Provides framework and flexibility • Consider white paper a good generalization of Planning Board efforts, does not mean agreed with all those efforts • Encourage EDC and Planning Board members to participate in Council public hearings • Compliment Planning Board for addressing the concern that there was not enough room for expansion of SR-104 and that the setback sited building too close to the curb • Concern that increasing the density will raise property values and will result in the two grocery stores leaving the area • Concern increased density will increases problems with internal circulation which will cause shoppers to go elsewhere • Concern with jamming too much into a restricted area • Suggest add something to the white paper about recreational needs Packet Page 661 of 787 • Recognize value of getting more out of Westgate due its location and what it can offer and that the development that has occurred was not welcomed by community, for example losing a bowling alley for a Walgreens • Negative outcome of inaction is equal or worse than the negative outcome of action • Add something about recreation • It is beyond time to start moving forward on project, need look to future • Don’t know what don’t know, does not do any good to wait • One of things happening in the Westgate neighborhood is redevelopment of the Woodway High School fields • EDC proposed this idea to the City Council in 2010 and literally has been involved in every step • There have been more than 50 meetings where the public could offer input and where information has been available • Plan as originally presented by the UW Green Futures Lab has been revised and additional significant revisions were made by Planning Board prior to and subsequent to their three public hearings • When the Planning Board proposal reaches City Council for discussion and action, will be at least one additional public hearing and City Council will have the benefit of the EDC and Planning Board minutes • Inaction is action; the result of years of inaction is what we see there now; a prime intersection occupied by bank and prime property that could have been redeveloped for more economic feasibility now has one story building and cement wall behind. That would not have occur if this plan had been in place • Edmonds citizens outside the bowl deserve amenities such as a lifestyle center, walkability, easy access to services, housing, and open spaces • Westgate is a gateway to the community and we need to improve how Westgate currently portrays the City. • Deserve opportunity for additional revenue through redevelopment of Westgate and improved quality of life and opportunity for communities by adopting white paper as written • Plan sets the stage for increased revenue in that area by increasing density and uses • Plan will help provide sales tax, excise tax and a larger tax base, all of which are good for the City’s revenue • Redevelopment at Westgate will not solve all the City’s problems but it will contribute to City’s revenue stream Port Commissioner Bruce Faires relayed the Port Commission has discussed opportunity for economic development in the City and agreed the most leverage for significant economic development is in Westgate but acknowledge it will not happen quickly. The Port Commission recognizes this is an important step for the community and urges the EDC to support the Planning Board’s recommendation. Audience Comments (Consensus of the Commission to allow to audience comments at this time.) Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, suggested the Plan was a drastic and destructive step. Edmonds will be 125 years old next year; it is a unique miracle due to luck and geography that Edmonds is still recognizable from that time. Edmonds has had the same identity for 125 and although not a dynamic commercial town, residents like the scale and uniqueness of Edmonds. Edmonds has maintained its reputation as a residential town since WWII. This planning effort went awry when the basis was commercial development rather than asking residents what they wanted. She did not want to destroy Edmonds’ residential quality to make a little money. She suggested citizens would support a bond issue to take the City in a unique direction that the residents want. She did not feel the Plan was representative of the community, incentive zoning was very disruptive and just a bribe and form-based zoning was a substitute Packet Page 662 of 787 for zoning and was wishy-washy. She concluded the Plan was a bad idea and she hoped the EDC would not support it. Commissioner Senderoff relayed what is intended at Westgate is a lifestyle center which should include opportunity for entertainment such as a bowling alley, movie theater, etc. Amusement establishments are currently permitted at Westgate as a conditional use. He referred to the list goals (C.1-9) in the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan recommended by the Planning Board and suggested adding amusement establishments to the list of goals. COMMISSIONER SENDEROFF MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERTRICH, TO AMEND THE WHITE PAPER TO ADD TO THE END OF THE CONCLUSION STATEMENT “HOWEVER IN ORDER TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE THE INTENT FOR AND CREATION OF A LIFESTYLE CENTER WITHIN THE WESTGATE BUSINESS DISTRICT, THE EDC WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING TEXT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE LIST AS C.10: “SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION OF AMUSEMENT ESTABLISHMENTS (PERMITTED AS CONDITIONAL USE) ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT MAY BE REGARDED AS FAMILY OR ALL AGES ENTERTAINMENT.” Discussion followed regarding the subgroup’s discussion of amusement establishments, the subgroup’s incorporation of the concept of entertainment into lifestyle centers, the Planning Board consideration of the issue and decision not to incorporate it, the white paper’s support for the Planning Board’s proposal, Planning Board Members as citizen experts on land use, Plan as a tool to enhance economy and vitality of City, components of a lifestyle center, and reference to lifestyle centers in the white paper. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AMENDMENT FAILED (3-10), COMMISSIONERS SENDEROFF, HUGHES AND HERTRICH VOTING YES. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (11-1-1), COMMISSIONER SENDEROFF VOTING NO AND COMMISSIOINER HERTRICH ABSTAINING. 5. STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope displayed the Merit Award presented to the City in the Governor’s 2014 Smart Communities Award Program. She presented the PowerPoint given by the Strategic Plan Consultant Cynthia Berne to City Council on June 24: General overview of how the SAP serves the City: • The SAP is the City’s roadmap to the future, allowing for cohesive decision-making of policies and programs. • The SAP was approved by the Council in April 2013. It is not a legal document but a fluid living document that will evolve over time. • The SAP was created over a two-year period • The outreach program consisted of surveys, charrettes and focus groups • Approximately 2,500 people participated in the numerous public outreach efforts Ms. Hope described Ms. Berne’s work product over the one-year contract: • Work with stakeholders to coordinate assignment of a primary lead to each action items • Create a first-level work program for implementation – a blueprint of how each action item will be addressed, identifying funding challenges, timelines and conflicts as well as other roadblocks Packet Page 663 of 787 • Create more awareness and cooperation throughout the community with multiple stakeholders during her outreach effort A working group has been created that is comprised of variety of organizations that were instrumental in the creation of the SAP. The working group has met three times and will meet three more times between now and the end of 2014. General statistics: • Total action items 86 • Action items with committed primary lead 76 • Action with unconfirmed primary lead 5 • Action items without a primary lead 5 • Completed action items 4 • Action items started and in motion 42 • Action items not yet started 44 In her next presentation to the Council in September/October, Ms. Berne will: • Discuss each action item that has been accomplished • Discuss each action item that has financial challenges • Give an updated report on the general statistics At the first quarter 2015 Council presentation Mr. Berne will present a technical working document for implementation that clarifies language details of the SAP. The SAP is a visioning document that has taken a great deal of time and resources to produce. A few action items are simple to implement but many are more complex and will require long term collaboration of community organization as well as strong sources of funds. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Hope advised further information regarding leads will be available at the SAP Working Group’s next meeting in September; the consultant’s one-year contract extends into March/April 2015; and the four actions that have been completed include establishing the Business Improvement District and installation of the International District lighting. 7. TOURISM AND VISITORS SUB-GROUP UPDATE Commissioner Dewhirst advised the sub-group’s next meeting August 5. They hope to have 1-2 items on the EDC’s next agenda. a. Tourism Video Program Coordinator Cindi Cruz explained Destination Marketing filmed every event in the City over the past year and developed a video to promote Edmonds. She played the video for the EDC, explaining it is available on the front page of City’s website and everyone is encouraged to provide a link to it. 8. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson inform of upcoming events: • Council work session on Tuesday, July 22 regarding the Westgate Plan • City Council Public hearing on the Westgate Plan on Monday, August 4 • Solarize Edmonds workshops, a program for low cost solar energy installation o July 22 and September 13 in Brackett Room: 6:30 – 8 p.m. o Two additional workshops in Lynnwood Packet Page 664 of 787 • Second annual Volunteer Appreciation picnic on August 24 at City Park 2 – 4 p.m. Councilmember Peterson reported on a meeting of the Leadership Alliance Against Coal that he attended, noting the group will soon be renamed to include oil trains. The group is making presentations to organizations; he offered to get their contact information. The issue is increased train traffic and the effects on the economy, local businesses, the transportation of goods and services, ferry access, etc. 9. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Hertrich referred to Chuck Gold’s presentation regarding a train trench for Main Street and Dayton Streets and suggested he made a presentation to the EDC. Chair Witenberg advised he has been in contact with Mr. Gold about speaking to the EDC. Commissioner Dewhirst inquired about the Top Food property. Ms. Hope advised it is listed for development by an Arizona company. The City had reached out to them but they have not shared their plans. Chair Witenberg relayed he was invited to participate in a citizen/council (Councilmembers Mesaros and Fraley-Monillas) group that interviewed three applicants for the Community Services/Economic Development Director position. Mayor Earling will be making his recommendation to Council shortly. Chair Witenberg relayed his intent to have Nick Echelbarger, Salish Crossing, make a presentation to the EDC about development plans for the property, possibly at the August 20 meeting. Port Commissioner Faires advised mid-August is the EDC’s fifth anniversary. Arts & Culture Program Manager Chapin referred to Strategic Plan Action Item 1.e.6, Art and History Walking Tour, advising of the dedication and tour tomorrow evening of the 12 Stages of History historical plaques. Planning Board Member Lovell explained Solarize Edmonds, sponsored by the non-profit Northwest Seed, is a community program in Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline to encourage residents to install solar energy. His system started two days ago and they are already selling electricity to PUD. There are tax rebates, incentives from PUD and the State, and reimbursement of $0.54/kWh if panels are manufactured in Washington. His system was installed in 2½ days and will pay for itself in 6 years. He heartily recommended the program. Chair Witenberg thanked the Business Enhancement Sub-group, particularly Commissioner Purcell who melded the positions of sub-group members into the white paper. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS See above. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Packet Page 665 of 787 Memorandum Date: October 2, 2014 To: City Council From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director and Rob Chave, Planning Manager Subject: Responses to Various Questions about the Westgate Zoning Code Proposal Planning Manager Rob Chave and I have received a number of questions over the last week or so about Westgate zoning. Below we have summarized the questions, which primarily came to us from City Council members, and provided each question with a number (for convenience) and a brief response. 1. Is anything specifically called out in the proposed Westgate code for wider sidewalks and/or buffers between the sidewalks and the roads? Wider sidewalks and planting buffers have been part of the Westgate discussion for a long time. The draft zoning code did not address them specifically because the current engineering standards (not part of the proposed zoning code) for commercial areas were assumed to be sufficient. For example, these standards resulted in a sidewalk and planting buffer totaling 12 feet in width along SR 104 fronting the new Walgreens. However, to be more upfront and consistent about what actually applies for sidewalks and planting buffers at Westgate, we will be proposing a clarification in the draft Westgate zoning code. 2. What is considered “open space” under the proposed code? Is it just trees, steep slopes, and stormwater management? “Open space” is often a term associated with set-aside space for certain kinds of uses—and where no building can occur. To make the intent for “open space” clearer in the code, we have offered more description and clarifications. (See page 34 and other pages of the proposed code.) Thus, open space may include areas of trees, steep slopes, and special stormwater features, such as landscaped rain gardens. But it also may include other set-aside areas, which must remain open to the air. The proposed code requires at least 15% of the lot to be open space. 3. While the proposed code requires at least 10 percent of the housing units be smaller in size (900 square feet maximum), would those really be “affordable”? And are builders able to do this in the open market? Packet Page 666 of 787 “Affordable” can be measured in different ways. First, there’s the affordability measure that is for housing that “feels affordable” to the average person. That means housing costs that an average or typical person could afford, but not necessarily tied to a hard dollar amount. That kind of affordable housing for moderate to middle-income people can be achieved by smaller units, fewer vehicle parking spaces, more units to the amount of land, etc. Builders are usually able to deliver this type of affordable housing in the open market without special subsidies. This is the kind of affordability that is provided through the proposed Westgate zoning. If the City Council wishes to go further with these measures, a simple solution could be to increase the required percentage of housing units that need to be 900 square feet or less. For example, instead of a 10% minimum, the percentage could be increased to 20% or 40%. This is still feasible in the market place, yet allows the option of larger units for the remaining housing. A second kind of affordability measure is used in various federal programs, especially for assessing the housing needs of low-income people. That measure is number-specific, 30% of the income of a person who qualifies for subsidized housing. This kind of housing is not for the average person. It can generally be built only if the developer is receiving a large subsidy, donation, grant or incentive. It will not be built without significant government or non-profit help. (Certain exceptions exist, such as when a farmer is providing housing for his workers.) 4. Can we require low-income housing (or maybe senior housing) through incentives? This question recognizes that In Washington, local governments cannot require that a percentage of housing units be provided for a certain income level (or a certain age group)— except when the local government is providing a reasonable incentive to do so. Typically, such an incentive would be a significant tax break or height bonus. However, it is not enough to simply provide the incentive. The local government or housing agency must monitor the housing sales or rents, along with the incomes of households, and make sure they are at the proper level. An enforcement system would be needed. The monitoring must be not just for the first year, but for the life of the program—at least 10 years, usually more. (Also, see the second paragraph of the response to Question 3.) Such a housing program can be very good. But if Edmonds were to set this up (or any other special needs program), the City would need to follow through with resources to monitor and enforce it. Deciding on such a program and setting aside resources to implement and manage it might be better considered holistically over the next year or two. If the City Council decides to study this and make it happen, the code can always be revised later to incorporate a targeted low-income program. (Note: Updating the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element for the 2015 deadline is in progress; an intention about an affordable housing program could be included.) 5. Has anyone checked with the Bartell’s property owners to see if a 20-foot setback (instead of the proposed 12 feet) would impact their plans and what their opinion is about parking requirements? No, we have not spoken with the owners about these specific ideas. We understand that they are comfortable with the Planning Board’s recommendation and are also tracking the Council's discussion. Of course, it is good to remember that at a certain point, requirements can be “more than the market will bear” and nothing will happen. (Also, if a building were to be feasible with Packet Page 667 of 787 a larger setback, more of the amenity space would probably need to be in the front, rather than at the rear or elsewhere.) 6. Can you provide the map showing the 25, 35 and 45 foot heights? How about a map showing 30, 40 and 50 foot heights? The 25/35/45 map is enclosed. A 30/40/50 map would be essentially the same. However, from a practical perspective, smaller lots aren’t going to be able to provide a 15,000+ sq. ft. ground floor commercial space, so the extra 5 feet of height will be more limited. If the Council has any concerns about where the large retail/extra 5 feet of height provision could be applied, we would recommend specifying that on the map. For example, the large retail/extra 5 feet could be limited to the set of larger parcels closer to the SR-104/100th Ave W intersection, where the grocery stores and drug stores want to locate. 7. Where four stories would be allowed, does a 10-foot setback apply? Can the bigger buildings be further back from SR 104? Under the proposed zoning, all buildings would have a minimum 12-foot setback from the street (SR 104 and 100th Street SW). An extra 10-foot “step-back” applies to the 4th floor. (A fourth floor is allowed only in certain locations and only if a set of “bonus” requirements are met.) While the City Council can require a larger setback for taller buildings, that also means that more of the amenity space will need be at the front—or there will be a push to allow vehicle parking in the setback area. Another issue relates to the claim that a third or fourth story would create a “canyon” effect unless a greater setback is required. If you compare the downtown streetscape to Westgate, the proposed Westgate scale is actually smaller than downtown. Downtown has 30-foot tall buildings across a 60-foot right-of-way. Westgate would have 45-50 foot buildings (maximum - and not in all locations) separated by 100-120 feet of right-of-way and setback. It seems exaggerated to call this a "canyon" effect. Remember that as more and more lot area is taken up by amenity space, open space, setbacks, etc., there is less likelihood that anything can actually be built. We don't know what that tipping point is, but we suspect some of the requirements are getting close. Also, refer to the McDonald's property example (attached) from the Sept 23rd presentation to see that the proposed Westgate code actually increases the amount of required open and amenity space way beyond what is required by existing code. 8. Can an “art” element be added as one of the amenities or incentives? Or would that get into the issue about whether what is art to one person may not be art to another? Yes, an art element can be added; we are including this in the material for the October 7th public hearing. (While it’s true that art cannot be universally defined, the many creative possibilities may be one of the important aspects of art.) 9. In the proposed code, 22.110.100 says we will use the City of Seattle Green Factor tools. What happens if the City of Seattle changes or abandons the Green Factor tools? The exact language for this section has changed a couple times to try to nail this down more clearly. Further revised language will be part of the draft code provided for the October 7th public hearing. The revised language will simply adopt by reference the Green Factor tools that Packet Page 668 of 787 have been (and are) included as an exhibit to the code. That way, it is clearer that we are not bound to what Seattle does in the future with its Green Factor standards. 10. Is 22.110.010.B properly worded? It says something like . . . “areas not shown in figure x can't have four stories. “ Was it meant to say something like . . . “areas not designated for four stories in figure x can't have four stories”? Our review indicates all allowable areas are shown in figure x. We couldn’t quite find the referenced statement. However, the last sentence of paragraph “B” has been deleted to avoid any potential confusion and because it didn’t add anything to the requirements. 11. Any particular reason that section C on amenity space talks about 15% of "lot" size and section D on open space uses 15% of "parcel" size? Does it make any difference? This was a wording change that came about through one of the revisions. We have updated the code to consistently use ‘lot’ instead of ‘parcel.’ It doesn’t really make a difference, except for consistency of terminology. 12. The section regarding Rowhouses includes the phrase "Mixed Type Development". (Packet page 196). Is this phrase defined? How can a row house be a "mixed type development" since it is supposed to be residential uses only? Also, in other building types, we require 15% of lot area for amenity space, but for rowhouses we only require "15% of the lot area devoted to residential uses". Can we make them consistent? The phrase ‘Mixed Type Development’ has been deleted; it didn’t appear to add anything meaningful to the description. The phrase ‘devoted to residential uses’ has been deleted to make the requirement(s) consistent. 13. Regarding Rob Chave’s response to a citizen: “Parking standards will still be in effect at Westgate. If any residential units are added, for example, they will require their own parking so as not to eliminate or conflict with commercial uses and access to stores.” Is the minimum commercial parking standard proposed for Westgate, 1 space to 500 square feet, not less than currently required at Westgate? Is the minimum multifamily residential parking standard proposed for Westgate less than we require for multifamily development elsewhere in the City? The point was that parking requirements will be in effect, separately, for both commercial and residential uses. The 1 to 500 minimum does not include residential requirements. As the discussion with Council has indicated, parking is a complex subject. The proposed minimum parking standards are different than the specific use-based (for commercial) or bedroom-based (for residential) standards currently in effect, but it doesn’t follow that the standards are uniformly lower or that the amount of parking at Westgate will be reduced. In some cases the minimum parking standard is reduced, while in others the minimum parking standard is increased. It’s the overall mixed standard that is important. ATTACHMENTS Maximum height map Open space example at McDonald’s property Packet Page 669 of 787 McDonald's property on Edmonds Way, west of Westgate 190 feet deep 400 feet wide 50 Approx. old front setback (actual - which includes 5' landscape strip) 50 Approx. non-developed slope area 76,000 Total Lot Area 11,400 15% Amenity Space Required 11,400 15% Open Space Required 20,000 Protected slope area 26.3%of total site 4,800 Front 12-foot setback 6.3%of total site 8,000 Front 20-foot setback 10.5%of total site Development scenarios…Existing Code:New Code: Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 Area available for building(s)62,000 44,600 Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 Packet Page 670 of 787 Packet Page 671 of 787 Packet Page 672 of 787 AM-7183 12. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Mayor Earling presents to the Edmonds City Council and citizens his 2015 recommended City Budget. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative With the submittal of the Mayor's recommended Budget, the Council will begin review and consideration of the Budget and possible amendments that will result in an adopted 2015 Edmonds City Budget. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/03/2014 08:28 AM Mayor Scott Passey 10/03/2014 08:31 AM Finance Scott James 10/03/2014 08:35 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/03/2014 08:36 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/03/2014 08:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/03/2014 08:40 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/03/2014 08:25 AM Final Approval Date: 10/03/2014 Packet Page 673 of 787 AM-7179 13. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Debra Sharp Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2014 Budget. Recommendation Approval of the 2014 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment Previous Council Action None Narrative There are a total of 6 budget amendments. The first two have been before Council previously and require formal budget appropriation. The first is moving the retroactive pay for the police contract from non-departmental to the various police cost centers. The second is for the city wide monitoring center. Only one new item affects the General Fund. The Finance Director would like to move budget from salaries and benefits to professional services to cover for the Accounting Supervisor's maternity leave. There is salary savings in 2014 so the net effect on the General Fund is zero. The Fleet Manager would like to move 2014 salary savings from the salary budget to overtime to cover while they recruit a new mechanic. The remaining two budget amendments are related to capital project funds. Attachments 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/02/2014 12:52 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 12:55 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 01:00 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 01:05 PM Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 10/02/2014 09:45 AM Packet Page 674 of 787 Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 675 of 787 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3973 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2014 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3973 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2014 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take Packet Page 676 of 787 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 677 of 787 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3973 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 678 of 787 2014 2014 FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 6,834,380 39,027,697 41,207,514 4,654,563 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 440,744 594,946 503,361 532,329 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 387,195 903,858 300,000 991,053 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,376,796 527,115 - 5,903,911 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,062 8,000 8,000 1,062 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 64,762 679,800 720,200 24,362 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 91,432 20,075 81,033 30,474 111 STREET FUND 215,200 1,712,100 1,658,810 268,490 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 481,154 9,231,407 9,634,666 77,895 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 431,932 102,823 149,349 385,406 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,703 25 - 17,728 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 106,736 54,140 54,000 106,876 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 61,719 20,308 26,786 55,241 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 13,858 1,623 3,600 11,881 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 70,429 18,200 19,000 69,629 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,101,453 904,343 1,582,712 423,084 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 760,453 904,243 1,199,841 464,855 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 225,677 43,708 18,200 251,185 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 15,289 4,000 13,653 5,636 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 70,203 160,136 175,435 54,904 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 718,445 1,552,517 2,270,517 445 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 150,334 186 - 150,520 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 839,292 12,970 - 852,262 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 2,014 4,519 4,500 2,033 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 645,000 645,000 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 8,744 28,600 28,600 8,744 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 47,921 28,626 - 76,547 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND 496 1,022,689 1,022,690 495 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 966,286 966,286 - 421 WATER 15,244,015 6,249,596 10,145,476 11,348,135 422 STORM 9,184,099 3,630,158 7,233,213 5,581,044 423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 43,359,087 8,406,515 14,835,838 36,929,764 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 787,224 840,816 840,816 787,224 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,847,165 1,478,108 1,093,279 7,231,994 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 191,014 45,379 89,615 146,778 Totals 94,203,886 79,830,512 96,531,990 77,502,408 Packet Page 679 of 787 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2014 FUND FUND 3949 3963 3973 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/3/2013 Mar-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Budget 001 General Fund 36,154,919$ 2,850,778$ 22,000$ -$ 39,027,697$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 594,946 - - - 594,946 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 903,858 - - - 903,858 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 527,115 - - - 527,115 013 Multimodal Transportation Fd.- - - - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 8,000 - - - 8,000 016 Building Maintenance 679,800 - - - 679,800 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 20,075 - - - 20,075 111 Street Fund 1,712,100 - - - 1,712,100 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 9,121,607 40,000 69,800 - 9,231,407 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 91,473 - 11,350 - 102,823 118 Memorial Street Tree 25 - - - 25 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 54,140 - - - 54,140 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,308 - - - 20,308 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,623 - - - 1,623 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 18,200 - - - 18,200 125 Park Acq/Improvement 904,343 - - - 904,343 126 Special Capital Fund 904,243 - - - 904,243 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,708 - - - 43,708 129 Special Projects Fund 4,000 - - - 4,000 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 160,136 - - - 160,136 132 Parks Construction 1,340,000 200,000 12,517 - 1,552,517 136 Parks Trust Fund 186 - - - 186 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 12,970 - - - 12,970 138 Sister City Commission 4,519 - - - 4,519 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - - - 645,000 140 Business Improvement District - - - - - 211 Lid Fund Control 28,600 - - - 28,600 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 28,626 - - - 28,626 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 1,022,689 - - - 1,022,689 232 2014 Debt Service Fund - 966,286 966,286 234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund - - - - - 421 Water 6,241,818 7,778 - - 6,249,596 422 Storm 3,530,158 100,000 - - 3,630,158 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 8,347,200 - - 59,315 8,406,515 424 Bond Reserve Fund 840,816 - - - 840,816 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,478,108 - - - 1,478,108 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 174,379 (129,000) - - 45,379 Totals 75,619,688$ 4,035,842$ 115,667$ 59,315$ 79,830,512$ Packet Page 680 of 787 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2014 FUND FUND 3949 3963 3973 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/3/2013 Mar-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Budget 001 General Fund 38,034,671$ 2,983,252$ 182,741$ 6,850$ 41,207,514$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 503,361 - - - 503,361 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 300,000 - - - 300,000 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - - - - 013 Multimodal Transportation Fd.- - - - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 8,000 - - - 8,000 016 Building Maintenance 720,200 - - - 720,200 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 81,033 - - - 81,033 111 Street Fund 1,595,810 63,000 - - 1,658,810 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 9,488,866 73,000 72,800 - 9,634,666 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 152,575 - (3,226) - 149,349 118 Memorial Street Tree - - - - - 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 54,000 - - - 54,000 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,786 - - - 26,786 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,600 - - - 3,600 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - - - 19,000 125 Park Acq/Improvement 1,377,712 205,000 - - 1,582,712 126 Special Capital Fund 1,189,291 - 10,550 - 1,199,841 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 18,200 - - - 18,200 129 Special Projects Fund 4,000 - - 9,653 13,653 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 175,435 - - - 175,435 132 Parks Construction 2,494,000 (205,000) (18,483) - 2,270,517 136 Parks Trust Fund - - - - - 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd - - - - - 138 Sister City Commission 4,500 - - - 4,500 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - - - 645,000 140 Business Improvement District - - - - - 211 Lid Fund Control 28,600 - - - 28,600 213 Lid Guaranty Fund - - - - - 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 1,022,690 - - - 1,022,690 232 2014 Debt Service Fund - 966,286 966,286 234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund - - - - - 421 Water 9,470,504 159,620 515,352 - 10,145,476 422 Storm 5,931,306 639,907 662,000 - 7,233,213 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 13,915,053 831,346 - 89,439 14,835,838 424 Bond Reserve Fund 840,816 - - - 840,816 511 Equipment Rental Fund 979,579 113,700 - - 1,093,279 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 89,615 - - - 89,615 Totals 89,174,203$ 5,830,111$ 1,421,734$ 105,942$ 96,531,990$ Packet Page 681 of 787 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Page Description Previously Discussed by Council General Fund 001 000 39 518 10 11 00 Salaries 124,300 9 General Fund 001 000 41 521 10 11 00 Salaries 3,100 General Fund 001 000 41 521 10 23 00 Benefits 1,200 General Fund 001 000 41 521 11 11 00 Salaries 2,100 General Fund 001 000 41 521 11 23 00 Benefits 800 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 11 00 Salaries 15,300 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 23 00 Benefits 5,500 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 11 00 Salaries 56,700 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 23 00 Benefits 20,500 General Fund 001 000 41 521 26 11 00 Salaries 4,200 General Fund 001 000 41 521 26 23 00 Benefits 1,400 General Fund 001 000 41 521 40 11 00 Salaries 2,000 General Fund 001 000 41 521 40 23 00 Benefits 700 General Fund 001 000 41 521 71 11 00 Salaries 8,400 General Fund 001 000 41 521 71 23 00 Benefits 2,400 General Fund 001 000 31 518 88 35 00 Small Equipment 6,850 10 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Cash 6,850 City Wide Monitoring System Retroactive Pay for Police Dept The remainint BARS Category Debit Page Credit New Budget Amendments General Fund 001 000 31 514 23 11 00 Salaries 13,000 11 General Fund 001 000 31 514 23 23 00 Benefits 2,600 General Fund 001 000 31 514 20 11 00 Salaries 3,800 General Fund 001 000 31 514 20 23 00 Benefits 1,600 General Fund 001 000 31 514 23 41 00 Professional Services 21,000 Special Projects 129 000 24 595 70 91 00 Interfund Services 9,653 12 Special Projects 129 000 24 508 00 00 00 Ending Cash 9,653 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 76 594 39 41 10 Professional Services 55,239 13 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 76 535 80 91 00 Interfund Services 4,076 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 397 38 423 20 Edmonds Contribution 30,124 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 374 07 010 00 Mountlake Terr Contr.13,746 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 374 07 020 00 Oly View Contr.9,817 Sewer Fund (WWTP)423 100 374 07 030 000 Ronald WWTR Contr 5,628 Sewer Fund 423 000 75 597 35 55 23 Interfund Transfer 30,124 Sewer Fund 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Cash 30,124 Equipment Rental 511 000 77 548 68 11 00 Salaries 2,000 14 Equipment Rental 511 000 77 548 68 12 00 Overtime 2,000 State Route (SR)99 Interfund Services Salaries to Overtime Finance Temporary Help Outfall Repair/Safety Access Packet Page 682 of 787 Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 - - 6,850 (6,850) 129 - - 9,653 (9,653) 423 - 59,315 89,439 (30,124) Total Change - 59,315 105,942 (46,627) Packet Page 683 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 91,800 0 0 0 0 0 32,500 0 0 0 0 0 (124,300)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.39.518.10.11.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: The Commission Police Officers settled their labor agreement this past June and is retroactive to January 1st. Finance GENERALPayrollFund Name:Retroactive Pay for Police Dept. Scott James 001.000.41.521 Salaries Benefits Packet Page 684 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?On-Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10,000 6,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 240 250 260 Court Contribution 3,200 0 0 0 0 0 Public Works contribution 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $19,200 $6,850 $230 $240 $250 $260 $26,050 $19,430 $19,440 $19,450 $19,460 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)6,850 230 240 250 260 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $6,850 $230 $240 $250 $260 * Support & Maintenance includes 5% annual increase Treament Plant Contribution Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:2014 Budget Development The proposal is to use the existing Decision Package 2014-11 which approved $10k to upgrade the video security monitoring and recording in the police department and to add additional funds from this Q3 Budget Amendment to allow for expansion of the use of the video recording system to other city departments that had been pursuing their own separate systems at substantial costs. The greatest value and least overall cost to the City is coordinating individual initiatives into a single platform. The initial upgrade as proposed in the 2014-11 DP has not yet been implemented. The combined funding will purchase a server and software to run the system and will replace 13 cameras within the police department and add 1 camera for the court. Both Fleet and WWTP have already obtained bids or purchased compatible equipment to add video security recording capability within their areas. This system will allow any city department to use the video infrastructure for video recording and have the capability to have up to 200 cameras. 31 Information Services Fund Name:City Wide monitoring Systems Brian Tuley 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 This project contains an initial investment plus an onoging support cost as defined below servers / software and camera's Software Maintenance / support * Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 685 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 (16,800)0 0 0 0 0 (4,200)0 0 0 0 0 21,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A The Accounting Supervisor will be starting a Maternity Leave this October. Finance has hired a temporary employee to help provide coverage during this leave. We will use salary and benefit savings of $21,000 to pay for the temporary employee. Administrative Services GENERALFinanceFund Name:Finance Temporary Help Scott James 001.000.31.514.20 & 23 N/A 001.000.31.514.XX.11.00 001.000.31.514.XX.23.00 Packet Page 686 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Professional Services 129.000.24.595.70.91.00 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 9,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $4,000 $9,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)9,653 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $9,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 129 Interfund Services 129.000.24.595.70.91.00 Total Expenses Comments 129.000.00.508.30.00.00 Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: State Route (SR)99 International District Enhancements. This amendment provides additional budget authority for projet close-out activities completed in 2014. The 2014 budget was developed assuming close-out activities would occur before the end of 2013. However, the federal grant documentation and close-out activities were completed in 2014. Public Works SPECIAL PROJECTS Engineering Fund Name:State Route (SR)99 International District Enhan Rob English Packet Page 687 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 55,239 0 0 0 0 0 4,076 0 0 0 0 0 30,124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $89,439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,439 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)30,124 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 30,124 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 13,746 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 9,817 0 0 0 0 Other 5,628 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $89,439 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Edmonds contribution MLT contribution OVWS contribution RSD contribution Interfund Transfer from Operating Fund Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:n/a In March the WWTP experienced a unanticipated expense of $63,391.19. This expense was due to an emergency repair of the treatment plant outfall. The project was supported by other public works staff from Street/Storm and water departments. Public Works SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Treatment Fund Name:outfall repair/safety access Pamela Randolph 423.100.76. n/a Professional Service 594.39.41.10 Other Public Works Labor 535.80.91.00 Packet Page 688 of 787 Budget Amendment for:Third Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 (2,000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: The Fleet Department is down to one mechanic for two months, September-October. I would like to have Carl work some overtime to help with this. I would like to tranfer $1,500 from salaries to overtime. Fleet Maintenance EQUIPMENT RENTAL Public Works Fund Name:Transfer funds: salaries to overtime Mike Adams 511 N/A 511.000.77.548.68.11.00 511.000.77.548.68.12.00 Packet Page 689 of 787 AM-7170 14. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on Development Code Amendment for CG Zones in Highway 99 Area. Recommendation Vote on the ordinance, with any amendments that bring it closer to the Planning Board's recommendation. Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on September 16, 2014, and voted 3-2 to bring back an updated draft ordinance for final consideration and adoption. Narrative On September 16, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendations for changes to the CG zones addressing commercial use requirements and parking. After deliberation, the Council voted to make changes to the Planning Board's recommendations and bring back an updated draft ordinance for final consideration and action (see draft ordinance, Exhibit 1). The Council action on the 16th indicated support for removing the 2nd floor commercial requirement but making no changes to existing parking requirements in the CG zones. The Council minutes from the September 16th public hearing are attached as Exhibit 2; the Council packet from that meeting is also attached as Exhibit 3. Attachments Exhibit 1: Draft ordinance Hwy 99 CG Exhibit 2: 9/16/2014 Council minutes Exhibit 3: 9/16/2014 Council packet Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 02:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 03:28 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 03:30 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/01/2014 03:02 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 690 of 787 Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 691 of 787 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, the Council held a joint meeting with the Planning Board and discussed Highway 99 zoning along with other issues, and the Council asked the Planning Board to look at Highway 99 issues, and; WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, a presentation was made at the Council meeting on the Planning Board's recommendations, which focused on two sets of changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) modifying the provisions of the General Commercial (GC) zones: (1) streamlining parking standards, and (2) amending use requirements to remove the second-story commercial requirement within CG developments, and; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, a public hearing was held at the Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Chapter 16.60 ECDC shall be amended to reflect the Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding uses; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 16.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through). Packet Page 692 of 787 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 693 of 787 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 694 of 787 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 695 of 787 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 696 of 787 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 697 of 787 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 698 of 787 B. Mixed-Use Developments. 2 1. A mixture of commercial and residential uses, including residential uses located on the first or second floors of a buildings, may be permitted for developments meeting 4 the following requirements: a. The proposed development’s combined site area is at least two acres. 6 ba. Floor area equivalent to the combined total leasable area of the first (ground) floor for all buildings located on the site is shall be devoted to commercial use. In cases 8 where the ground floor occupies less area than the footprint of the building, the footprint of the building shall be used in arriving at the area calculation. 10 b. This The required commercial floor area may be provided in any manner desirable on-site, except that for all buildings oriented to and facing frontage streets the 12 street-facing portions of the ground floor shall be occupied by commercial uses. Parking area(s) are excluded from this calculation. This requirement is not intended to require 14 commercial uses facing service drives, alleys, or other minor access easements that are not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. 16 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 18 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 20 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 22 or CG2 zone must meet the design standards contained in this section. A. Screening and Buffering. 24 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights-of-way shall not 26 exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. 28 b. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building setback. 30 c. Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. 32 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 34 water quality elements. e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. 36 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 38 in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-40 family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. 42 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 44 height and continuous in length. Packet Page 699 of 787 i. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or 2 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 4 shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical 6 elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single-8 family zones. k. When no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping three feet in 10 width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. 12 a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages. 14 b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: 16 i. Walls, ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque, 18 iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque, or iv. Type III landscaping. 20 B. Access and Parking. 1. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between 22 the building’s front facade and the primary street. 2. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. 24 3. Paths within Parking Lots. a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved 26 routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers. 28 b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on-site buildings as well as 30 pedestrian walkways that border the development. c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on 32 each side or have curb stops at each stall in the parking lot on one side and four feet of planting on the second side. 34 d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a mini- mum of every 100 feet. 36 4. Bonus for Parking Below Grade. a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below grade or under 38 the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the parking that is provided below grade or under-building: 40 i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. 42 iii. A mixture of full- and reduced-width parking stalls may be provided without meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could be 44 provided at full-width dimensions. 5. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, 46 drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: Packet Page 700 of 787 a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the 2 facades of the building that face a street. b. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off-site. 4 c. Only one direct entrance or exit from the drive-through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the 6 drive-through shall be internal to the site. 6. Pedestrian and Transit Access. 8 a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to adjacent developments if feasible. 10 b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be 12 identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking or access areas. 14 c. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are 16 required. C. Site Design and Layout. 18 1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, then their location on the site design should not be uniform in its layout. If a project has a 20 uniform site layout for parking and open spaces, then the buildings shall vary in form, materials, and/or identity. The following design elements should be considered, and a 22 project shall demonstrate how at least five of the elements were used to vary the design of the site: 24 a. Building massing and unit layout, b. Placement of structures and setbacks, 26 c. Lo cation of pedestrian and vehicular facilities, d. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, 28 e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, f. Types of building materials and/or elements, 30 g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Individuality for Particular Structures. If a project contains several new or old 32 buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: 34 a. Individual entry design for each building. b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, 36 open spaces, and the street. c. Create variety through facade materials and organization. 38 d. Create variety through roof forms. e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and 40 appearance. 3. Lighting. 42 a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full “cut off” fixtures. 44 b. Parking lots shall have lighting poles with a maximum of 25 feet in height. c. Pedestrian ways shall have low height lighting focused on pathway area. Pole 46 height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. Packet Page 701 of 787 d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the build-2 ing/canopy. D. Building Design and Massing. 4 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct “base” and “top.” A “base” and “top” can be emphasized in different ways, such as masonry pattern, more architectural detail, 6 step-backs and overhangs, lighting, recesses, visible “plinth” above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using 8 architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 2. In buildings with footprints of over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be 10 given to scale, massing, and facade design so as to reduce the effect of large single building masses. Ways to accomplish this can include articulation, changes of materials, 12 offsets, setbacks, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. This can also be accomplished by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, 14 that meet the intent. Note that facade offsets or step-backs should not be applied to the ground floor of street-front facades in pedestrian-oriented zones or districts. 16 3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space which may substitute for a 18 massing requirement if the space is at least 1,000 square feet in area. In commercial zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables, 20 planters and other elements. b. Retaining or reusing an historic structure listed on the National Register or the 22 Edmonds register of historic places. Any addition or new building on the site must be designed to be compatible with the historic structure. 24 4. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from 26 residentially zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: 28 a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. 30 c. Belt courses of a different texture and color. d. Projecting cornice. 32 e. Projecting metal canopy. f. Decorative tilework. 34 g. Trellis containing planting. h. Medallions. 36 i. Artwork or wall graphics. j. Vertical differentiation. 38 k. Lighting fixtures. l. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. 40 [Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.040 42 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely 44 enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities; 46 Packet Page 702 of 787 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 2 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 4 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6 6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 8 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of 10 Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Interim Use Status – Public Markets. 12 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 14 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-16 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 18 established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 20 Packet Page 703 of 787 subdivision process. Property that is not a lot of record now will not become a lot of record by establishing this definition. This provides clarity regarding what a lot of record is. Councilmember Petso provided an example, a person purchases a house and there is a vacant parcel that the realtor says is not a buildable lot between the house and the view. She asked whether this change would allow that lot, although undersized, to be developed. Mr. Lien advised an undersized lot would still have to comply with nonconforming standards regarding a lot. There is reference to an innocent purchaser in the code today so someone could purchase a lot created outside the subdivision process and apply for innocent purchaser; there is just not any criterion or an established process. Councilmember Petso observed as long as a lot was within the percentage of legal size, it could be developed. Mr. Lien answered yes, it could be built on if it met the size standards in the nonconforming table. That is true even without this code update. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien reviewed the permit type chart in 20.01.003: Type I is an administrative decision with no notice; Type II including innocent purchaser is a staff decision with public notice; Type IIIA and IIIB are Hearing Examiner processes, Type IVA and IVB are quasi-judicial legislative actions and Type V is a legislative action. Innocent purchaser was added to the table as a Type II decision. Councilmember Bloom asked why Type II was chosen and whether there were any other options. Mr. Lien answered all the review types are options. Type II was recommended by the City Attorney because the criteria for innocent purchaser are clearly identified, allowing staff to make a determination. Type II also provides notice to property owners in the area; adjacent property owners may have information to be considered during the review process. Type II decisions are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The Planning Board agreed with the City Attorney’s recommendation. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a lot could become nonconforming as a result of the City purchasing property from the property owner or the property owner giving property to the City for a walkway, roundabout, etc. Mr. Lien answered he was uncertain whether that had been looked at but the definition of nonconforming lot states it met the zoning standards when it was created. At Councilmember Bloom’s request, staff will research how the dedication or acquisition of right-of-way affects the status of a lot. That is not impacted by this code update as no changes are proposed to the nonconforming code. Mayor Earling opened public participation portion of public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing and remanded to City Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 1 AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON TWO SETS OF CHANGES: (1) PARKING. THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR ALL CG-ZONED PROPERTIES WOULD BE SET AT A UNIFORM STANDARD (1 SPACE PER 400 SQ. FT. OF LEASABLE BUILDING SPACE), AND POTENTIALLY FURTHER REDUCE THE PARKING STANDARD TO 1/600 SQ. FT. FOR PROPERTIES THAT ONLY HAVE FRONTAGE ADJOINING OTHER CG ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT-SPECIFIC PARKING STUDIES. (2) USES. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO FLOORS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN ALL CG DEVELOPMENTS. MIXED USE Packet Page 704 of 787 DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH NO SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SPACE REQUIREMENT Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board’s recommended changes to the CG and CG2 zones focus on two sets of changes: 1. 2-floor commercial requirement before residential units can be added 2. Parking standards The Planning Board’s goals included: • Remove obstacles to development • Encourage retention of commercial uses while encouraging more residential uses along Highway 99 – develop a “community” • Take advantage of transit and other development scenarios developing along the corridor in other jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett) With regard to the commercial requirement, the current requirement is two floors of commercial before any residential can be built. The exception is large scale developments of two acres or more. The Planning Board: • Looked at different options with the focus on removing the requirement for two floors of commercial space: o No commercial requirement o Minimum requirement (e.g. some commercial requirement across the site) but not 2 floors • Recommended no requirement with a review after one year of experience With regard to parking standards, Mr. Chave explained parking is currently regulated by use. Parking standards are minimums and more parking can be provided. For example, Top Foods provided more than parking than was required. They later found they did not needed all the parking and began redeveloping the parking lot. With parking minimums, it is up to owner to decide how much parking to provide. Many jurisdictions have moved away from use standards and developed standard rates; rates can vary by location. During their review, the Planning Board: • Looked at two options: o Single blended rate of two-tiered parking requirement based on access to Highway 99 (1 per 400 square feet or 1 per 600 square feet (if only have Highway 99 frontage) o A parking study option was also considered, where a project-specific study could be approved in lieu of the specified standards • Recommended the two-tiered parking system and the study option Mr. Chave noted the packet includes other options considered by Planning Board for the Council’s consideration. Councilmember Bloom relayed her concern that all the information presented was related to Highway 99, and the CG zone at the Port was not discussed at all. She asked whether approving the Planning Board’s recommendation would change the zoning at the Port as well. Mr. Chave explained the Port is zoned CG but it is a contract rezone, a specific contract that regulates uses on the Port property. The contract rezone does not allow residential uses; anything related to mixed use or residential in the CG zones would not apply to the Port. The change to the parking standards would affect the Port property. The Port does not have frontage on Highway 99 so the parking requirement would be 1 per 400 square feet. Parking at the Port is currently regulated by use. The uses are largely office and light industrial which are less stringent than 1 per 400 square feet. Due to parking requirements for the health club, there is a mix of parking requirements and he estimated the current parking was approximately 1 per 400 square feet. Packet Page 705 of 787 Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification, due to the contract rezone none of the changes apply to the CG zones at the Port other than the parking. Mr. Chave explained the contract is very specific, excluding certain uses from the CG zone such as residential. None of the changes to commercial would affect the Port property because the contract rezone supersedes it. Councilmember Petso referred to the one year experiment and asked whether the code is automatically limited to 1 year. Mr. Chave explained that could to be done via ordinance; tonight the Council is authorizing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. Councilmember Petso referred to the February 26 meeting where the Planning Board did not have a quorum as only 3 commissioners were present. At a later meeting, when the Planning Board took action, there were only four commissioners present and one commissioner preferred to wait. She asked why the Planning Board was rushing this, noting the Council was also missing two members tonight. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board had had a couple meetings and the commissioners present that night wanted to proceed. Councilmember Petso referred to a statement in the February 26 minutes that there have been discussions with the Top Food property owners who have expressed an interest in developing or upgrading the site which is currently underutilized. She asked whether there was any chance that the proposal to allow 100% residential on Highway 99 was the reason the grocery store closed. Mr. Chave answered that chance was probably zero because it preceded this discussion. The Top Foods transaction involved many properties throughout Puget Sound and was not site specific. Councilmember Petso recalled one alternative to risking the loss of an existing businesses such as a car dealership and/or grocery store to 100% housing was to limit 100% housing to properties that could demonstrate commercial challenges. She has been told that some of the properties on Highway 99 have topographical challenges and that viable commercial is difficult on some properties due to an awkward or unusual shape. She asked whether the Highway 99 Task Force or the Planning Board discussed limiting the residential experiment to just the properties that could demonstrate they have commercial challenges. Mr. Chave answered there was no discussion like that; he was unsure what criteria would be used. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was any discussion about the risk of losing large, revenue generating car dealerships to housing. Mr. Chave answered that was highly unlikely but anything was possible. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was any discussion regarding the effects on Lake Ballinger. When serving on the Lake Ballinger Task Force, she learned about flooding due to rain events as well as water quality issues. A study has been done regarding the amount of impervious surface in the area; she asked whether increasing impervious surface would make the situation at Lake Ballinger worse or would development be required to require clean and retain their stormwater. Mr. Chave answered any redevelopment would be required to meet current standards. For example, Dicks had to deal with the stormwater on their property. Councilmember Petso said the February 26 Planning Board minutes refer to allowing parking on the ground floor. She asked whether parking on the ground floor would be encouraged or permitted. Mr. Chave it was not encouraged, it was not permitted now and he was uncertain how that could be done. Councilmember Petso asked whether consideration had been given to requiring a property that developed entirely residential to comply with the multi-family code, observing multi-family residential parcels have requirements such as side setbacks that the CG zone does not have. Mr. Chave answered no, the multi- family code comes into play with the parking standards, otherwise building codes largely govern multi- family. Councilmember Petso observed in multi-family zones elsewhere in the City there would be a 15- foot side setback; she asked whether the side setback for multi-family residential on Highway 99 would Packet Page 706 of 787 only be what the fire code required. Mr. Chave answered that was essential the same as downtown; there are residential setback and street setbacks, commercial zones do not have side setbacks. It is common to have multiple properties under a single ownership; requiring a side setback would heavily restrict how a project could be designed. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was a rear setback on Highway 99. Mr. Chave answered there is a residential setback. Council President Buckshnis relayed the action requested tonight is to direct the City Attorney to create an ordinance that will be returned to the Council which will allow Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Peterson to provide input if they have any concerns. Neither Councilmember Fraley-Monillas nor Peterson objected to the Council reviewing this in their absence. Council President Buckshnis asked whether a developer could pay for a parking study if they wished. Mr. Chave answered yes, under the proposed code; that is not currently included in the code. Council President Buckshnis asked how to prevent a developer paying someone to write a report saying they needed a lower parking requirement. Mr. Chave responded a developer would need to justify with clear evidence why a lower parking standard would work. Staff would be looking for hard experience; for example, a developer who has done mixed use in transit locations and can demonstrate the parking works and that the proposed development is in a similar location. Councilmember Johnson observed there are two standards proposed for the parking, one is related to protection of overflow parking. She asked whether any analysis had been done of the streets that could be affected by on-street parking or what lots have an abutting CG or CG2 zone. Mr. Chave answered property with only frontage on Highway 99 would have the less stringent parking requirement. Properties with frontage on streets other than Highway 99 would be required to meet higher parking standards. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there was any current data regarding the number of parking spaces that currently exist in the Highway 99 corridor. Mr. Chave answered no, explaining that would be a large project. The 1 per 400 square feet is more stringent than the old downtown standards (1 space per 500 square feet). That standard was established due to the amount of on-street parking downtown; there is little on-street parking on Highway 99. The ratios for service are 1/200 up to 1/600; 1/400 was splitting the difference. The parking ratio for office without customer service is 1/800 but that was less likely to occur on Highway 99 and it was not considered in determining an average. The 1/400 reflects the mix of service and retail that exists on Highway 99 today. The auto dealers have very unique parking standards; their parking standards are lower but they have a lot of cars parked on their lots. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there was any data to support the parking recommendations. She observed the parking for medical offices was 1 per 200 square feet. She questioned how an average could be determined without knowing what currently exists. Mr. Chave answered the goal was identifying a reasonable average based on the general pattern of development on Highway 99. A detailed study would be an extensive piece of work. Councilmember Johnson said she was not suggesting a detailed study, she wondered whether there was any data to support the proposed change. Mr. Chave answered it was determined by considering the overall mix of uses, general locations, and a general average between the low and high of the mix of uses. Staff also considered data from other cities which are generally less stringent such as 1/500. Staff was reluctant to recommend 1/500 due to the proximity to residential. It was felt the requirement could be reduced slightly if a property only had Highway 99 frontage and there was no opportunity for parking to spill into a residential area. Councilmember Johnson said the difficulty with the information provided was it was not all comparable to Edmonds. For example parking requirements for regional growth centers which do not reflect Highway 99. In the parking requirements for other centers, the only representative one is the Lynnwood Highway 99 Mixed Use Node which required 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. She was concerned the standard for properties with frontage on Highway 99 was 1 space per 600. Mr. Chave agreed it was a minimum. He Packet Page 707 of 787 acknowledged in considering other cities requirements, there was not a one to one match. Councilmember Johnson summarized she would be more comfortable with more data. Councilmember Bloom asked Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty if he was comfortable the changes would protect the car dealerships. Mr. Doherty answered this was being offered as pilot project to see the response from the development community. The City has a full range of car dealerships, long standing, main car dealerships and some smaller, more marginal car dealerships. The very large profitable car dealerships on Highway 99 are very entrenched in their businesses, have a profitable market niche and the larger ones own their property. There is a huge hurdle for a developer to overcome in a market that not super-hot. In a market that is still struggling to prove itself for residential and mixed use such as the Highway 99 corridor, the margins between development costs and rents are thin. A developer would need property with a very low basis, no leases to buy out, little development on the site, and low construction and site development costs to meet that thin margin. Profitable car dealerships do not fall in that that category. Especially with a one year pilot project, the chances were infinitesimal. There may be a slightly higher likelihood for the smaller dealerships. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing and remanded to Council for action. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR FINAL COUNCIL ACTION IN TWO WEEKS REFLECTING THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED CHANGES REGARDING PARKING AND USES. Councilmember Petso asked whether the motion included limiting the ordinance to one year. Mr. Chave advised that was up to the Council; the Planning Board wanted to review what happened in a year. If the Council wished, a sunset date could be established. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A SUNSET DATE OF ONE YEAR. Action on Amendment 1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE OPTION TO REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH A PARKING STUDY. Councilmember Petso explained she shared Council President Buckshnis’ concerns that it may be difficult require sufficient documentation to ensure parking will be adequate. As Mr. Chave said one of the means of reducing parking was based on management of the property, she was concern a property owner who cleverly managed his parking could sell and the structure with inadequate parking remain. Councilmember Johnson said in general she would be more comfortable if there was more parking data and information available before a change was made. Action on Amendment 2 UPON ROLL CALL MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. Packet Page 708 of 787 Amendment 3 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LIMIT 100% RESIDENTIAL TO PROPERTIES THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE COMMERCIAL CHALLENGES SUCH AS UNUSUAL PARCEL SHAPE, CHALLENGING TOPOGRAPHY OR A HISTORY OF MINIMUM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. Councilmember Petso explained her goal was to attempt to encourage more development activity on Highway 99 but not risk replacing valuable commercial uses that currently exist. If a property is vacant because there is a steep slope in the center or it has an odd shape that will not accommodated a viable business, those properties can be subject to the 100% residential experiment. Mayor Earling asked how that would be defined. Councilmember Petso reiterated unusual parcel shape, challenging topography or a history of minimal commercial activity. Mr. Chave observed that sounded like a policy statement rather than a regulation. Councilmember Petso suggested if the amendment passes, the City Attorney could tighten up the language. Action on Amendment 3 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND MESAROS VOTING NO. Amendment 4 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE PROPERTY OPTING FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL BE GOVERNED BY THE RM 1.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM SECONDED. Mr. Chave asked whether that would include lot coverage, setbacks and everything in the RM 1.5 zone. Councilmember Petso responded it may be appropriate to exclude height limits. She explained RM 1.5 is the maximum density multi-family zone which most would consider appropriate for Highway 99. It includes standards to ensure quality residential development such as side setbacks, lot coverage requirements, etc. Mr. Chave suggested specifying which requirements would be included to avoid unintended consequences. For example multi-family zones have very specific density requirements. Councilmember Petso suggested excluding density and height. Councilmember Bloom said it was difficult to make a decision on the amendment without knowing all the RM 1.5 development standards. She asked whether Mr. Chave could provide further information. Mr. Chave agreed he could depending on the outcome of vote. He preferred to identify the standards that would be included such as setbacks. He explained multi-family standards are established for multi-family zones such as low building heights, individual buildings on a site, buffered from residential; they are not set up for mixed use development. Action on Amendment 4 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment 5 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE IF 100%RESIDENTIAL IS DEVELOPED ON A SITE, THE PARCEL BE SUBJECT TO THE COVERAGE, SETBACK AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE RM 1.5 ZONE. Action on Amendment 5 Packet Page 709 of 787 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND MESAROS VOTING NO. Amendment 6 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO STRIKE THE SENTENCE IN THE AGENDA MEMO, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH NO SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SPACE REQUIREMENT. Councilmember Johnson explained she supported removing the second floor commercial space requirement which she felt was consistent with the direction given to the Planning Board at the joint meeting. The Planning Board considered that and added allowing residential development. Mr. Chave summarized Councilmember Johnson preferred the option the Planning Board considered but did not recommend; there is still a commercial requirement on the site but it can be configured so that there was a strictly commercial building and a strictly residential building but the equivalent of one floor of commercial would be somehow configured on the site. Councilmember Johnson agreed. Mr. Chave pointed out that is similar to the provision for 2+ acres. He clarified under the amendment, a residential building could not be constructed on a property without any commercial; there would still be a commercial requirement. Councilmember Johnson explained this would preserve the intent of commercial for the Highway 99 corridor and allow creative options. Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Doherty’s suggestion that with that change, the sunset provision may not be needed. Councilmember Mesaros clarified under this amendment, every site would require some commercial use. Mr. Chave answered yes. Council President Buckshnis did not support the amendment, citing the need for affordable housing and progressive zoning on Highway 99 and that there may not need for commercial development on all properties. The larger properties are required to have a commercial mix, the smaller properties are not. Action on Amendment 6 AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-1-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION TO VOTE ON PARKING AND USES SEPARATELY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as amended to provide direction to Staff and the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final Council action in two weeks reflecting the Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding parking UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as amended to provide direction to staff and the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final Council action in two weeks reflecting the Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding uses MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave advised staff will bring back an ordinance for final discussion/action in two weeks. Packet Page 710 of 787 AM-7147 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:09/16/2014 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Public hearing on potential amendments to the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) modifying the provisions of the General Commercial (CG) zones. The amendments focus on two sets of changes: (1) Parking. The parking standards for all CG-zoned properties would be set at a uniform standard (1 space per 400 sq. ft. of leasable building space), and potentially further reduce the parking standard to 1/600 sq. ft. for properties that only have frontage adjoining other CG zones. The amendments would also provide for development-specific parking studies. (2) Uses. The amendments would remove the requirement for two floors of commercial space within all CG developments. Mixed use developments would be allowed with no specific commercial space requirement. Recommendation Provide direction to staff and the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final Council action. 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. A presentation was made at the Council meeting of August 26th on the Planning Board's recommendations. 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 Packet Page 711 of 787 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 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 09/12/2014 07:48 AM Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2014 07:59 AM Packet Page 712 of 787 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/12/2014 08:03 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/11/2014 09:50 PM Final Approval Date: 09/12/2014 Packet Page 713 of 787 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 714 of 787 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 715 of 787 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 716 of 787 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 717 of 787 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 718 of 787 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 719 of 787 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 720 of 787 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 721 of 787 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 722 of 787 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 723 of 787 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 724 of 787 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 725 of 787 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 726 of 787 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 727 of 787 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 728 of 787 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 729 of 787 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 730 of 787 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 731 of 787 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 732 of 787 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 733 of 787 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 734 of 787 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 735 of 787 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 736 of 787 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 737 of 787 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 738 of 787 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 739 of 787 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 740 of 787 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 741 of 787 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 742 of 787 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 743 of 787 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 744 of 787 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 745 of 787 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 746 of 787 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 747 of 787 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 748 of 787 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 749 of 787 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 750 of 787 AM-7168 15. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/07/2014 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Contract Discussion (and/or Renewal) with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC (Lighthouse) Recommendation Previous Council Action The information provided in the narrative of this agenda memo was supplied to Council on June 3, 2014. During deliberations it was decided that Council would attempt to prepare procedures for Performance Evaluations for City Attorney Services. This evaluation was created and an exact process was agreed upon which was to fill out an evaluation using a number from one to seven and if any number was less than four, examples were to be provided. Narrative Written evaluations were received from four Council Members and numeric evaluations were all favorable. These evaluations are with Mr. Taraday. The Administration did not follow the process and a verbal evaluation occurred with the Mayor and Council President and past Council President (as described in the process). Considering this process was not followed and specific examples were not provided, it was requested that individuals meet with Mr. Taraday to discuss their concerns. Also, in the future, it was discussed that Lighthouse Law Firm should be apprised of the concern when the concerns are noted. As an example, if a specific item requires a weekly turnaround, that direction should be given. Another example given was that some of the Directors wrote ordinances and then Lighthouse reviewed these items. According to Mr. Taraday, this is not an uncommon practice on hourly-based contracts when the City is attempting to cut costs. The largest issues to resolve with this process are: 1) was the process adequate to meet the needs of all parties; 2) Was the questionnaire sufficient to make an educated answer concerning the Attorney’s capabilities and deliverables; 3) is this process necessary in the future based on this test run; and 4) does this process take into account the inter-relationship between performance and expectations of timeliness of responses in view of a flat rate attorney contract? The continuation of this evaluation process based on the results received will be addressed at a later time in a specific study session so as we can all discuss expectations, process and timing issues. This agenda item is to determine if Council is ready to approve the renewal of the contract with Lighthouse for four years based on the information provided below starting at a flat rate of $41,000 per month. The contract does have a clause of firing at will and timing of deliverables can also be added or Packet Page 751 of 787 any other concern highlighted by the Administration. The Proposal: For 2015, Lighthouse is proposing a flat fee of $41,000 per month or $492,000 per year. This is still less than the average actual City Attorney cost for years 2008 through 2010 when the city contracted with another firm. If one were to equate this increase to a series of equal annual increases, it would amount to four consecutive increases of 6.4%, as compared to the average annual increase of -15% from 2005 through 2010. The proposed 2015 flat fee is a 28% increase over the current flat fee approved in 2011. Lighthouse is proposing that the $41,000 flat fee for 2015 would be increased by 4% each year for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Comparison to Hourly Rates: If one were to analyze the proposed 2015 flat fee on an hourly basis (assuming the same average 3153 hours worked over the last two years) it equates to an hourly rate of $156 per hour. This compares favorably to the hourly rates charged by two other municipal law firms that currently serve as city attorney to the cities of Issaquah and Lynnwood. Lynnwood pays its city attorney according to the following rates: for members - $175 for the first 70 hours per month, then $210 for additional hours; for associates $160-$165 per hour. Issaquah pays its city attorney $247 per hour for members and $190 per hour for associates. The Lynnwood and Issaquah rates above were established for use in 2013. It is not known at this time what those firms will charge in 2015. Comparison to Total Civil Legal Budgets of Other Cities: It would be appropriate to inquire how the proposed total City Attorney annual budget ($492,000) compares to those of other similar cities. But this inquiry would be difficult and time-consuming to perform and may still not yield an “apples to apples” comparison for the following reasons: • City attorney costs are not always reflected in the city attorney line item of the budget. For example, Edmonds has frequently, but not consistently, allocated a portion of the city attorney’s budget to the city council budget. This occurred in years 2007 through 2013, but not 2004 through 2006 and not in 2014. Other cities sometimes allocate legal fees incurred by the city to the budget for a significant capital project. Because the various places where the legal fees of a given jurisdiction would appear may not be readily apparent in that jurisdiction’s budget, one cannot have a high level of confidence that the city attorney line item is fully inclusive of all legal fees. • Some cities (e.g. Lynnwood) include the cost of public defense in the legal budget, others do not. • Because all cities adopt their budgets toward the end of the year, any budget-based analysis will usually be one year off because one is forced to look at 2014 numbers when budgeting for 2015. • For cities with in-house legal departments, it may not always be readily apparent from the budget which employees are working on the civil side, which employees are working on the criminal side, and which employees are working both civil and criminal concurrently. • There will always be the question of which cities to use as comparable cities and what factors are the most relevant in determining these from the standpoint of city attorney expense. So, here goes: It would be overly simplistic to assume, for example, that legal fees will increase on a per capita basis with population. WCIA places cities into actuarial groups based on the number of worker hours that a city has in a year. So, worker hours may be another valid data point for comparison. Note that worker hours and population do not move in lock step. WCIA’s actuarial group 4 (over $400,000 worker hours) Packet Page 752 of 787 population do not move in lock step. WCIA’s actuarial group 4 (over $400,000 worker hours) includes cities with populations as low as 19,120 (Port Angeles) to as high as 95,540 (Renton). WCIA’s actuarial group 3 (200,000 to 400,000 worker hours) includes cities with populations as low as 9,290 (Fife) and as high as 53,670 (Shoreline). Another factor that might not be as obvious is percentage of voter turnout as the more residents that vote, the more questions that might be asked in the form of public records request. Therefore, a compelling argument can be made that a politically engaged local citizenry will generate more legal work than a citizenry that is not engaged as they are paying attention to their local government and asking questions of their government officials and thus generate work for the city attorney. In 2013, the City of Edmonds had a voter turnout of 52.14% according to a December 2, 2013 article in the Herald. By comparison, the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace had voter turnouts of 42.06% and 41.16% according to the same article. The city of Shoreline had a voter turnout of 45.3%. And the statewide turnout was 45.27%. From these figures, it is easy to surmise that Edmonds has one of the highest voter turnouts of any similarly-sized city in the state and that has been a consistent trend for many years. The above analysis suggests that it may be more relevant to compare Edmonds present legal fees to Edmonds past legal fees than it is to compare Edmonds present legal fees to the present legal fees of some number of “comparable” cities. Having said that, Attachment 1 does provide a table of data from other cities. The 2012 and 2013 City Attorney Annual reports are attached as Attachments 2 and 3. To date, there has been no significant incidents provided to Council regarding the performance of Lighthouse other than normal complaints that occur from time to time (i.e. too busy on other issues). As such, this “rookie” contract can be tweaked to address any aforementioned issues and the flat rate structure is very attractive from a budgeting and planning perspective. Most importantly, it is well documented as to the number of hours spent by both Council and the City on legal matters and changing back to a per hourly basis may be very costly. Comparison to Total Civil Legal Budgets of Other Cities with in-house counsel: In Attachment #3, the Mayor has provided one concept about moving the legal process in-house and this issue was looked into four years ago and it was determined to be very expensive considering the public records request, benefits, vacations, etc. Many of the comparable cities in Attachment 1 - such as Bothell, Bremerton, Olympia, and Puyallup have in-house counsel. As you can see from the table, going in-house doesn't necessarily save the city money. As shown, all four of those cities spend more on their legal departments than Edmonds would be spending, even with our increased flat fee. In-house departments may work well in a city with a large legal budget to allow the city to hire several different lawyers with different specialties (public records, employment, land use, contracting, etc.). As an example: the City of Shoreline doesn¹t have a police department and therefore it isn't a comparable spends $436,723 on its in-house legal department. For this amount, their department has 3.0 FTEs, but only 2.0 are lawyers and the other is an assistant. Lighthouse offers a more specialized knowledge with their team than any city could have with two in-house lawyers. Lastly, but most importantly, an in-house lawyer is an employee of the city and can be fired by the mayor unilaterally. A contract city attorney is hired and fired by the city council. This dynamic should not affect the attorney's legal advice as long as the in-house city attorney is strong enough to tell the mayor, from Packet Page 753 of 787 the attorney's legal advice as long as the in-house city attorney is strong enough to tell the mayor, from time to time, that perhaps they disagree and that the decision should be brought to the council. While we all are professionals and understand the ethical standards of the legal profession, it seems more costly to even consider moving in-house and this flat rate fees still seems the most efficient and effective method for this City. -------------- At the May 27, 2014 City Council Meeting, discussion and questions arose concerning the cost to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a City Attorney. Staff estimated the cost as follows: publishing is approximately $200; most of the other costs relate to staff and Council time which is hard to quantify. Attachments Attachment 1 - Table Comparing Total Legal Budgets of Various Cities Attachment 2 - Summary of litigation results handled by Lighthouse during their contract Attachment 3 - October 2013 City Attorney Annual Report Attachment 4 - Memo from Mayor Earling Attachment 5 - 05-27-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt Attachment 6: June 3, 2014 Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2014 08:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 09:36 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 09:45 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/29/2014 09:42 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014 Packet Page 754 of 787 Packet Page 755 of 787 Packet Page 756 of 787 Packet Page 757 of 787 Packet Page 758 of 787 CI T Y A T T O R N E Y A N N U A L R E P O R T Oc t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 3 Packet Page 759 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Je f f T a r a d a y • C i t y C o u n c i l a n d M a n a g e m e n t m e e t i n g s • El e c t e d O f f i c i a l A d v i c e • L a n d U s e • L i t i g a t i o n • C o o r d i n a t i o n / M i s c e l l a n e o u s • O f f i c e h o u r s t w i c e a w e e k Packet Page 760 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Sh a r o n C a t e s • L a b o r a n d E m p l o y m e n t • Co n t r a c t s a n d I L A s • B i d d i n g a n d P r o c u r e m e n t • L i t i g a t i o n • O f f i c e h o u r s o n c e a w e e k Packet Page 761 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Pa t r i c i a T a r a d a y • P u b l i c R e c o r d s A c t c o m p l i a n c e • Co d e e n f o r c e m e n t • L i t i g a t i o n • O f f i c e h o u r s o n c e a w e e k Packet Page 762 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Ro s a F r u e h l i n g - W a t s o n • L a b o r a n d E m p l o y m e n t Packet Page 763 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Be t h F o r d • R e s e a r c h • Wr i t i n g • L i t i g a t i o n ( S y d L o c k e , H u m a n n ) • O f f i c e h o u r s o n c e a w e e k Packet Page 764 of 787 Te a m E d m o n d s Mi k e B r a d l e y – F r a n c h i s i n g ( A s t o u n d , Z a y o ) a nd f i b e r o p t i c s Su s a n D r u m m o n d – L a n d u s e , G M H B Ka t h i e O ’ H a n l o n – L a b o r & E m p l o y m e n t Ch u c k W o l f e – M T C A , f o r m - b a s e d c o d e Packet Page 765 of 787 Th e L i g h t h o u s e S t a t s Oc t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 2 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 • 3 , 1 0 4 h o u r s w o r k e d b y t e a m • $3 8 4 , 0 0 0 i n l e g a l f e e s ( f l a t f e e u n c h a n g e d si n c e M a r c h 2 0 1 1 ) • $ 1 2 4 a v e r a g e e f f e c t i v e h o u r l y r a t e Packet Page 766 of 787 To p S e v e n M o s t R e s o u r c e - I n t e n s i v e Oc t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 2 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 1. C i t y C o u n c i l 41 7 h o u r s 2 . P r e c i s i o n E a r t h w o r k s 3 3 9 h o u r s 3. H u m a n R e s o u r c e 3 2 3 h o u r s 4. D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s 3 1 2 h o u r s 5. L o c k e v . E d m o n d s 3 1 0 h o u r s 6. H u m a n n v . E d m o n d s 2 7 8 h o u r s 7. P o l i c e 25 4 h o u r s Packet Page 767 of 787 Pe n d i n g L i t i g a t i o n wi t h L i g h t h o u s e • S yd L o c k e – D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t , N e g l i g e n c e , B r e a c h o f Co n t r a c t , T r e s p a s s / I n v e r s e C o n d e m n a t i o n , Co n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n , H a r a s s m e n t – A r i s i n g f r o m c i t y ’ s c o d e e n f o r c e m e n t e f f o r t s i n th e e a r l y a u g h t s – M S J o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 3 – M e d i a t i o n ? T r i a l ? Packet Page 768 of 787 Pe n d i n g L i t i g a t i o n wi t h L i g h t h o u s e • N ew C i n g u l a r W i r e l e s s ( f e d e r a l c o u r t ) – D e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t c l a i m s e e k i n g $ 1 1 7 , 0 0 0 ta x r e f u n d – U n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t – D u e p r o c e s s c l a u s e a l l e g a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o fa i l u r e t o p r o v i d e c l e a r p o s t - p a y m e n t r e l i e f Packet Page 769 of 787 Pe n d i n g L i t i g a t i o n wi t h L i g h t h o u s e • F iv e C o r n e r s R o u n d a b o u t C o n d e m n a t i o n s – A n d e r s e n • P u b l i c u s e o r d e r • N o p o s s e s s i o n y e t – L a k e s h o r e I n v e s t m e n t C o r p o r a t i o n • Te a m s t e r s a r b i t r a t i o n – Fe b 2 0 1 4 – Wa t e r w a t c h t r u c k • Ki m C o l e E E O C – Aw a i t i n g w o r d o n w h e t h e r s h e w i l l b e a l l o w e d m o r e ti m e t o a p p e a l t h e J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 O r d e r d i s m i s s i n g he r E E O C c l a i m Packet Page 770 of 787 Li t i g a t i o n c o m p l e t e d b y L i g h t h o u s e in l a s t 1 2 m o n t h s • P re c i s i o n E a r t h w o r k s – Di s p u t e w i t h c o n t r a c t o r a r i s i n g f r o m c o n s t r u c t i o n of H a i n e s W h a r f P a r k – Se t t l e d • $3 2 5 , 0 0 0 + $ 9 1 , 0 0 0 t o P r e c i s i o n • $1 3 0 , 0 0 0 t o K u l c h i n • $3 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m G & O • De b i H u m a n n – ad m i n i s t r a t i v e w h i s t l e b l o w e r c l a i m ( f e d e r a l c o u r t pe n d i n g / W C I A ) – Ci t y o f f e r e d j u d g m e n t , w h i c h w a s a c c e p t e d f o r a to t a l o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 771 of 787 Li t i g a t i o n c o m p l e t e d b y L i g h t h o u s e in l a s t 1 2 m o n t h s • O ls o n v . C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( L U P A ) – Vo l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s e d , n o l i a b i l i t y t o c i t y • Ne w C i n g u l a r W i r e l e s s ( f e d e r a l c o u r t pe n d i n g ) – Vo l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s e d , r e - f i l e d i n f e d e r a l c o u r t • Me i e r s v . C i t y o f E d m o n d s – Se t t l e d f o r $ 9 4 , 0 0 0 a n d $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 o f i n - k i n d co n s i d e r a t i o n – Di s m i s s a l p e n d i n g Packet Page 772 of 787 Ci t y ’ s U s e o f O t h e r L a w F i r m s ( o p t i o n a l ) • S t e p h a n i e A l e x a n d e r o f M i c h a e l & A le x a n d e r – M a c h a d o a r b i t r a t i o n – $ 3 7 , 0 0 0 * *Am o u n t s o n t h i s a n d f o l l o w i n g s l i d e s r o u n d e d t o n e a r e s t $ 1 , 0 0 0 . Packet Page 773 of 787 Ci t y ’ s U s e o f O t h e r L a w F i r m s ( o p t i o n a l ) • C a r o l M o r r i s o f M o r r i s L a w – Hi l l m a n c l o s e d r e c o r d r e v i e w ; $ 5 , 0 0 0 – P o i n t E d w a r d s B l d g 1 0 c l o s e d r e c o r d r e v i e w ; $1 , 0 0 0 ( $ 5 , 0 0 0 a u t h o r i z e d t o - d a t e ) – P r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f m o d e l c o d e ; $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 4 0 , 0 0 0 a u t h o r i z e d t o - d a t e ) Packet Page 774 of 787 Ci t y ’ s U s e o f O t h e r L a w F i r m s ( o p t i o n a l ) • F o s t e r P e p p e r – Wa t e r / S e w e r R e v e n u e B o n d s ; $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 ( n o t in c l u d e d i n o u r s c o p e o f w o r k ) • S o f i a M a b e e o f S u m m i t L a w G r o u p – C o n s u l t i n g o n T e a m s t e r s ’ g r i e v a n c e ; $ 1 , 0 0 0 ($ 5 , 0 0 0 a u t h o r i z e d ) • W C I A - a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l ( n o t o p t i o n a l ) Packet Page 775 of 787 sa m p l e o f r e c e n t c o d e a m e n d m e n t s • E a s e m e n t s r e t a i n e d a s p a r t o f s t r e e t v a c a t i o n • “R e a s o n a b l e e c o n o m i c u s e ” d e f i n i t i o n (i n t e r i m ) • A l l o w e d u s e s i n C A O ( i n t e r i m – m u l t i p l e dr a f t s ) • E x t e n d i n g t h e l i f e o f s h o r t p l a t s • P a r k I m p a c t F e e s • D o w n t o w n B I D • C h a p t e r 2 . 1 0 ( i n p r o g r e s s ) Packet Page 776 of 787 re c o m m e n d e d co d e a m e n d m e n t s • C o n t i n u e w i t h i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f m o d e l c o d e – Li m i t e d r o l e s o f a r – W i l l a n a l y z e a n d m a y p r o p o s e r e v i s i o n s be f o r e t h e s e a r e b r o u g h t t o c i t y c o u n c i l • D e s i g n r e v i e w p r o c e s s • A p p e a l p r o c e s s • T r e e - r e l a t e d c o d e s Packet Page 777 of 787 Qu e s t i o n s ? Packet Page 778 of 787 Packet Page 779 of 787 recycling containers in parks and to replace aging containers. In 2012 he received a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation for a dozen recycling containers on downtown streets to make recycling available for shoppers and visitors; these are located next to existing street-side garbage receptacles. He is also partnering with haulers on outreach and education. Snohomish County has a developed a revenue sharing agreement with the two largest haulers in Snohomish County, Republic Services and Waste Management, whereby a percentage of the fund from recyclables collected from customers is used to fund waste prevention, recycling and outreach programs. Waste Management has also provided school assemblies and classroom workshops. This summer he is partnering with Republic Services on outreach strategies to multi-family properties that do not have onsite recycling or have poor recycling performance. Recycling has available to patrons at the City’s largest festivals for several years. Last year’s food waste collection pilot program at the Rotary Waterfront Festival was very successful and will occur at this year’s festival. He recognized the WSU Extension Sustainability Stewards Program who provides volunteers for the Waste Warrior Outreach Program. Efforts are underway to offer diversion of food waste at the Taste of Edmonds and Edmonds Arts Festival. He described the City’s recent effort to have Edmonds businesses complete the online Green Business Pledge. Any business that pledges is issued an emblem showing their pledge. Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Fisher for his interesting presentation, relaying Councilmember Johnson and she asked for this presentation. She inquired whether the intent of education in schools was to reach parents. Mr. Fisher answered the intent is to form habits as well as remind parents. Education is important due to conflicting information. Councilmember Bloom asked where the recycling handout could be obtained, noting she was previously unaware that clean plant pots and scrap metal could be recycled. Mr. Fisher answered the form regarding recycling and yard/food waste is available on the City’s website. Councilmember Mesaros echoed the appreciation for Mr. Fisher’s presentation and efforts to educate school children. He asked how the Green Business Pledge is marketed. Mr. Fisher answered the pledge is a very simple program that was created to test the business community’s interest. It was advertised in the local media and the City newsletter as well as letters to the Chamber, Rotary and other business groups. If there is enough interest, time and resources, a Green Business Recognition Program could be developed. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged Mr. Fisher to continue marketing the program. Councilmember Johnson thanked Mr. Fisher for his presentation, commenting this subject is dear to many Councilmembers. At Councilmember Bloom’s request, they met with Mr. Fisher to discuss recycling and this presentation is one of the results. Councilmember Bloom is interested in the educational aspect and she is interested in any legislative efforts to enhance the work Mr. Fisher is doing. They have met twice and plan to continue discussions. This topic is also being discussed by the Mayors Climate Protection Committee. 8. CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC (LIGHTHOUSE) Council President Buckshnis thanked Finance Director Scott James and City Attorney Jeff Taraday for their assistance with reviewing the numbers. This item is information only; it will be on next week’s agenda for action. Council President Buckshnis reported a great deal of data was reviewed including costs for in-house attorney as well as information from WCIA. She referred to the agenda memo, essentially a white paper she prepared with the assistance of Mr. Taraday and Mr. James. She commented it was important to understand the difference between a flat fee, hourly rate and in-house. She summarized the data indicates the City has received a tremendous amount of work from Lighthouse over the past three years. Packet Page 780 of 787 Councilmember Peterson recalled when the City previously considered changing city attorneys, one of the issues identified by citizens was the City had not gone through that process for several years. He appreciated this coming back to Council, and suggested even if the Council is satisfied with Lighthouse’s service, it is a good exercise to go out into the market. Councilmember Bloom thanked Council President Buckshnis and Mr. James for gathering the information, commented it helped her to see the history of legal expenses, what the flat fee has offered, how much work Lighthouse has been doing and the hourly rate. She appreciated being able to call and ask Mr. Taraday a legal question and said she never felt rushed. She asked if the proposed increase was for the fourth year of the current contract. Council President Buckshnis answered Lighthouse’s contract expires at the end of the year. When this process was done four years ago, it took approximately five months to select a new legal firm. She wanted to discuss it early to ensure if a majority of the Council wanted to do RFQ that there would be enough time. The proposed contract renewal is 2015-2018. Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Peterson’s comments. Regardless of the Council’s satisfaction with Lighthouse, it is a good practice to seek information. That bodes well for Lighthouse and for the citizens. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in the estimated cost of an in-house attorney, not just the cost of the three FTE but also the cost of attorneys for special litigation as well as other costs. She recalled an in-house attorney was deemed to be too costly when the City hired Lighthouse. Council President Buckshnis answered Shoreline, Bothell, Bremerton, Olympia and Puyallup have in-house attorneys. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in an estimate of costs in addition to the in- house attorney such as for special counsel. Council President Buckshnis relayed WCIA’s indication that the City would spend a great deal on set-up, supplies, benefits, determining areas of expertise etc. for an in-house attorney. Her primary concern with an in-house attorney was he/she would be an employee of the City and could be fired at will. Councilmember Bloom relayed she was also concerned that an in-house attorney could be fired by the Mayor unilaterally. If the Council wanted to explore that, she suggested consideration be given to not only the cost but what forms of government use in-house attorneys. For example Shoreline is a City Manager form of government; in Edmonds’ Council-Mayor form of government, the City Attorney is the only position the Council has the authority to hire and she did not want the Council to give that authority to the Mayor. She appreciated the idea of an RFQ but preferred not to go through that exercise as she was uncertain what the purpose of that expensive, lengthy process would be. Councilmember Petso echoed the point made by Councilmember Bloom, explaining she was part of the process four years ago. Prior to that time, she did not believe the City had considered hiring a different City Attorney for over 20 years. The process four years ago took several months and consumed a great deal of Council time. Unless there was some suspicion that something had changed in the marketplace, she suggested not looking just for the sake of looking. She anticipated an attorney interview process and the budget would be the only two things that would be accomplished for the rest of year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the City had considered other law firms in the past when Ogden Murphy Wallace’s contract expired. Former City Clerk Sandy Chase recalled an RFQ was done a couple times but most frequently Ogden Murphy Wallace’s contract was renewed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how long Ogden Murphy Wallace had been the City Attorney. Ms. Chase answered over 20 years, likely closer to 30 years. Packet Page 781 of 787 Council President Buckshnis encouraged Councilmembers to sleep on this; talk to Mayor Earling, Mr. Taraday, Mr. James and herself; and to continue the discussion next week. She recognized this was an important decision and that there has been some criticism of Lighthouse. 9. CITY INFORMATION SUPPORT/COMMUNICATIONS Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite recalled this was former Community Services/Economic Development Director Mr. Clifton’s project and a new Economic Development Director has not been hired. During the budget process there were two decision packages related to communications/information support: 1. A contracted position to help with the City’s economic initiatives and arts and funds for communication and advertising costs and to work with the Economic Development Office and work across the City in sharing information. 2. Providing enhanced information to, and communication with, the public by contracting for ongoing social media and content management to include but not limited to Facebook, Google, YouTube. With regard to the second package, Ms. Hite explained a very small amount of money was allocated to hire a consultant to help with developing a Facebook page and access to social media for the public. The results of that person’s work will be available soon. The first package was an initiative Mayor Earling brought to the Council with the idea of creating stimulus to define Edmonds as an arts community. Mr. Clifton worked with Mayor Earling to issue the first RFQ that addressed the description in the decision package, to hire a person to look at the City’s entire communication system, help create a marketing strategy, and enhance communication with the public around Edmonds as an arts destination and economic initiatives. The interview committee that interviewed the firms who responded to the first RFQ included Councilmember Bloom and Council President Buckshnis. After the committee gave their feedback to Mayor Earling, he met with the preferred candidate to discuss the scope of work. The preferred candidate did not have any local knowledge of Edmonds. During this time, Mr. Clifton resigned. Mayor Earling decided that firm was not the best match and issued a second RFQ. Ms. Hite referred to a table (attachment 6 in the Council packet) comparing the original decision package and the first and second RFQ. Mayor Earling explained this position was included in the budget and the ability to move forward falls within his contracting authority. He wanted to involve community members, Councilmembers and staff in the process on the first RFQ, similar to the process used to hire the Strategic Plan consultant. In his discussions with the preferred candidate, he did not think that firm would work for a variety of reasons. He decided to issue a second RFQ, hoping to attract other applicants. His intent was to have the same description but by rearranging the items in the scope, attract different firms. The budget was reduced from $40,000 to $30,000 because it is already May; he retained the $15,000 in the budget for ancillary services. He summarized his intent was to move forward; both scopes of work were intended to provide the same information but had been formatted differently. Councilmember Bloom explained she was part of the interview committee and acknowledged she was not thrilled with how any of the candidates fit the criteria. The interview committee was notified on May 9 that a new RFQ would be issued; the new RFQ was very different than the original RFQ. For example, Item B in the original RFQ, communication with public in general, was completely eliminated. The new RFQ focuses on marketing and informing the public. The interview committee discussed open government and engaging the public. She feels very strongly that the City needs to move toward open government. Her idea of open government is completely different than what is stated in the new RFQ. Communication is a two-way street; eliminating Item B has the potential to turn the consultant’s work Packet Page 782 of 787 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #208809 THROUGH #208878 DATED MAY 29, 2014 FOR $223,878.29 C. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND SELL A PARTS CAR TO PICK-N-PULL D. CONFIRMATION OF PAMELA ERICKSON TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis introduced Pamela Erickson whose appointment to the Edmonds Sister City Commission was confirmed on the Consent Agenda tonight. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, reported a formation of vintage World War II P-51 airplanes will fly over Edmonds on Friday, June 6. Peter Laylin, representing the Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee, relayed train horn noise can be substantially reduced or eliminated via the creation of a quite zone. The committee is conducting a campaign to show support for the creation of a quiet zone including circulation of a petition to property owners who would benefit from establishing a quiet zone and asks for the creation of a local improvement district (LID) to fund the project. Their initial efforts indicate widespread support for establishing a quiet zone. The manager of a hotel located near the tracks provided comments received from overnight guests regarding disruption caused by the train horns. The committee’s initial focus was the creation of an LID to fund construction of a full quiet zone which would require the installation of a number of fixtures to satisfy the Federal Railroad Administration requirements. If BNSF installs a second track, major elements of the quiet zone would need to be moved. Those studying the issue, including City staff, are considering installation of a wayside horn which would provide considerable relief from horn noise but not eliminate it entirely. This system is much less expensive and could be more easily relocated if a second track is installed. He suggested such a system be funded by the City without an LID. He urged the City Council to move ahead with the creation of a train horn quiet zone, place it on the on the CIP and budget funds for continued study of the establishment of a train horn quiet zone. 7. CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC (LIGHTHOUSE) Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis explained she has spent a considerable amount of time discussing this with Mayor Earling and City Attorney Jeff Taraday. Information regarding the flat fee, hours, etc. is included in the agenda memo. She has requested in the future Mr. Taraday provide at least the Council President with the hours spent by Lighthouse to provide an idea of the tremendous amount of work they do. Packet Page 783 of 787 Councilmember Mesaros proposed a formal evaluation to recognize the good work accomplished by Lighthouse, get input from those who work with the firm as well as identify any areas of concern. He suggested 1-2 Councilmembers work with Lighthouse to develop a document and circulate it among senior City staff and Councilmembers. That document could be used to evaluate City Attorney contracts in the future. Councilmember Petso expressed support for establishing an evaluation process. She observed the current contract has a 60 day termination right at the option of the City. That works well with an evaluation process; if problems occur, the 60 day termination provision could be invoked. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Taraday advised the new contract has a 4% annual increase. Councilmember Petso observed the current contract requires Lighthouse request an annual increase and she questioned the change to an ongoing annual increase. Mr. Taraday explained the current contract does not allow any increase in their fees and Lighthouse has not increased their fee since they were hired in 2011. He was open to either an automatic annual increase or allowing him to proposing an annual increase. He explained it was to Lighthouse’s advantage not to have a fixed percentage increase and allow him to request an increase on an annual basis. Councilmember Petso preferred to consider an increase to the Lighthouse contract annually in connection with budget rather than locking into a 4% annual increase. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion to establish an evaluation committee of staff and Council, noting no one should have to learn how they are doing right before their contract renewal. An evaluation keeps communication open between all parties in a formal setting. And evaluation process would be appropriate for any contractor the City contracts with on a long term basis. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion, relaying that she planned to ask that be implemented in the new contract. She relayed citizens’ concern with Mr. Taraday quoting the law rather than providing an opinion based on the law. Mr. Taraday answered he was trained not to memorize the law because the law changes over time and if one memorizes the law, one day the law will change, the statute will be amended or the case overruled, and what he memorized would be wrong. Second, it helps establish trust and credibility for those he is advising to hear not just the citation of the law but how he is analyzing it and whether there is some key phrase or sentence that he is focusing on. He hoped this helped the Council understand his thought process and to have additional confidence in his advice. If the Council did not like that extra information, he could adjust his style. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked Councilmember Mesaros if his intent was to delay approval of the contract until after an evaluation was conducted. Councilmember Mesaros answered yes. Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled at the last meeting the Council was discussing whether to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to consider other applicants for City Attorney. She asked whether the Council wanted to proceed with an RFQ tonight and then do the evaluation or whether the evaluation will be used to determine whether to proceed with an RFQ. Councilmember Mesaros anticipated doing the evaluation first. If everyone was happy with the evaluation, he would not recommend proceeding with an RFQ. If the Council was unhappy with the evaluation, that would be a reason to proceed with an RFQ. He anticipated the Council would be happy with the evaluation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the basis of an evaluation is how the firm is doing as well as the work plan for future. If the Council determines they want to renew Lighthouse’s contract, an evaluation would be appropriate because it could also include expectations for future performance. If the Packet Page 784 of 787 Council is interested in determining how Lighthouse has performed, she suggested instead of an evaluation, establishing a work group to determine whether the flaws outweigh the positives and whether to proceed with an RFQ. She inquired about the termination clause. Mr. Taraday answered the contract has 60 day termination clause which is shorter than he would like. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she was not interested in doing an RFQ to seek other law firms. She felt the City has gotten extremely good service at a very reasonable price from Lighthouse. Further, Lighthouse has resolved a number of issues they inherited from the former City Attorney. She supported the concept of an evaluation as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas described. She urged the Council to determine tonight whether to proceed with an RFQ although she did not support doing an RFQ. She was concerned that establishing an evaluation process would take longer than Councilmember Mesaros thinks as it needs to be done in a manner that it would be a tool for the Council to use in the future. She preferred not to delay renewal of the contract with Lighthouse and to accomplish an evaluation before the end of the 60 day period. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the 60 day termination period always exists; the City simply needs to give Lighthouse 60 days’ notice prior to termination. He agreed with Councilmember Mesaros, viewing it as a three step process, 1) if an evaluation is conducted and it is glowing, the contract can be renewed, 2) if the evaluation identifies issues that can be easily resolved, the contract language can be revised and the contract renewed, and 3) if the evaluation uncovers huge discrepancies, the Council can discuss proceeding with an RFQ. Although the public sees Mr. Taraday at Council meetings, Councilmember Peterson explained most of the City Attorney’s work is done outside Council meetings. The City Attorney is hired by the City Council but he does the work of the City so it is important to have input from the Directors, the Mayor and the Council to ensure everyone is getting the best legal representation or to identify ways to improve. He agreed it was not easy to develop an evaluation but he also did not want to rush the contract renewal. Assuming that everyone was happy with the City Attorney likely contributed to the City having the law firm for 26 years. If the evaluation process takes a long time, Lighthouse’s contract could be extended for one year. He did not support the Council making a decision on an RFQ tonight and preferred to establish a committee with two Councilmembers and key staff to develop an evaluation process for Council review. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the discussions would be more appropriate in an executive session without Mr. Taraday. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis answered there was an attempt to have an evaluation in an executive session but because there had not been a complaint, an evaluation was not an appropriate topic for executive session. The discussion must to be concluded in public. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS TO SET ASIDE THE RFQ FOR THE TIME BEING, PROCEED WITH AN EVALUATION WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL LEAD TO A NEGOTIATION OR DECISION AT A FUTURE TIME. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a one year extension while the Council goes through this process, pointing out the 60 day termination clause could be enacted at any time. Although Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis has mentioned there are issues with Lighthouse, not all Councilmembers are aware of those issues. She anticipated anything in Lighthouse’s evaluation should have already been discussed with Mr. Taraday. She asked Mr. Taraday whether there have been any discussions with him regarding Lighthouse’s performance before the last month. Mr. Taraday answered he has never had a regular performance review; he had a conversation with Councilmember Peterson when he was the Council President regarding a concern at that time but there have not been any discussions since then other than his conversation with Mayor Earling last week that was precipitated by the contract renewal. He welcomed feedback on their performance as well as a regular, formal evaluation. Packet Page 785 of 787 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when Lighthouse’s contract expires. Mr. Taraday answered at the end of 2014. Knowing the expiration date, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was comfortable with proceeding with a formal assessment of Lighthouse. She agreed Lighthouse deserves to have a periodic assessment and to be told on a timely basis if things are going wrong. Council President Pro Tem Johnson pointed out Lighthouse’s contract does not expire until the end of year. The contract renewal is being discussed now due of the length of time it took to hire Lighthouse. Councilmember Mesaros suggested there are three processes that could occur annually or every other year: 1) establish standards of performance, 2) conduct evaluation to determine if the standards have been met, and 3) discuss of standards for the future and timing of implementation. Councilmember Mesaros suggested researching standards for a City Attorney in a municipality Edmonds’ size as well as seeking input from Lighthouse. That document could be returned to the Council for review and input. Councilmember Bloom did not support the motion, commenting it always takes longer than you think and this was a procedure that was never done for the former City Attorney. She felt it was a disservice to Lighthouse to be developing a procedure at the same time the Council was negotiating a contract. Lighthouse needs more notice and the decision regarding contract renewal needs to be made more quickly. Although she was glad the contract renewal was being considered early in the year, she feared the Council was underestimating the amount of time it will take to establish a procedure to annually evaluate the City Attorney. She preferred to focus on renewal of the contract and then carefully establish a procedure for an annual evaluation, pointing the Council always has the option to terminate the contract. With the other issues facing the Council, she questioned whether focusing the Council’s energy on establishing a new procedure. She summarized an evaluation is a great idea and it can be initiated following renewal of Lighthouse’s contract. Councilmember Petso relayed she read the contract incorrectly and now recognized there was a flat fee until December 31, 2014. She asked whether Lighthouse wanted an answer by September. Mr. Taraday explained with a firm their size and a client Edmonds’ size, they have a lot of eggs in the Edmonds basket. If Edmonds wants to make a change, 60 days’ notice would not be an ideal situation for the people working at Lighthouse. He requested some indication sooner than later whether the Council planned to renew their contract. Councilmember Petso relayed she spoke with Mayor Earling about Lighthouse’s performance and she was satisfied with moving ahead with renewal. It was also acceptable to her if the Council wanted to create an evaluation process. She asked whether the evaluation process would change the information regarding Lighthouse. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented she included as much information as possible in the packet, the financials, the pros and cons of an in-house attorney, etc. She was concerned with timeliness and if an evaluation process is established for the City Attorney, it should also be done for the prosecutor and other contractors. The City has received a tremendous amount of work for the money and Lighthouse has resolved a number of cases. She relayed Mayor Earling’s issues are also related to timeliness; the Council consumed 412 hours of Mr. Taraday’s time last year. She suggested including language regarding timeliness in the contract. She was also concerned with establishing a precedent. She has had no problem with Lighthouses’ work to date. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND MESAROS VOTING YES; Packet Page 786 of 787 MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. Councilmember Mesaros offered to serve in some capacity to help move this forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also offered to assist with creating an evaluation process. It was agreed to establish a committee of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and Mesaros; they will return with an evaluation process at the June 24 Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will prepare the agenda memo. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised they will also consult with Human Resources/Reporting Director Hite and Mayor Earling. 8. CITY INFORMATION SUPPORT/COMMUNICATIONS Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite advised Mayor Earling requested she present this topic. This position was funded via a decision package in the Economic Development Department. Through the budget process, the Council approved two decision packages to improve communication in the City. The first communications decision package, the focus of this agenda item, was focused on improving communications and marketing Edmonds as an arts destination. The second decision package was also to enhance communication to/from the public and funded a contract person to create social media outlets to provide more information to the public. An Edmonds Facebook page will soon be available based on that decision package. The intent of the first decision package was to improve communications internally and externally by marketing Edmonds as an arts destination. An RFP was sent out and several firms applied. A committee that included Councilmembers Buckshnis and Bloom, a few citizens and staff reviewed the responses and recommended one firm to Mayor Earling. Mayor Earling interviewed the firm to discuss the scope of work. In the meantime, Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton resigned; this contractor was intended to report to Mr. Clifton who had the knowledge to guide a firm to achieve the goals. With Mr. Clifton’s absence, Mayor Earling wanted a firm that was familiar with Edmonds and reissued the RFQ to achieve that goal. Several firms applied and Mayor Earling is awaiting the outcome of the Council’s discussion. Speaking on behalf Mayor Earling, Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis relayed Councilmember Bloom wanted to postpone this item due to Mayor Earling’s absence but he indicated he said everything he need to say last week and it is within his authority to hire this person. Council President Pro Tem Johnson pointed out Strategic Action Plan Item 1.e.2 is related to the promotion of arts and culture with a ranking of medium high. The strategic objective parallels the work being dong via this contract, Create an Edmonds arts website and utilize social media including Google maps, Facebook, and Twitter to promote and attract visitors to an expanded year-round calendar of events and festivals for performing, literary, culinary, fine, and other arts interests. She pointed out as a result of last year’s Art Summit, this position was identified to promote arts and culture in the City. With regard to economic development, she pointed out the correlation between the economic health of the City and the tourist industry as tourism is one of the economic drivers in the county. For these reasons it makes sense to support this contract. Council President Pro Tem Johnson asked whether this was a one-time expense or an ongoing expense. Ms. Hite answered the decision package was funded as a one-time expense for this year. Oftentimes initiatives like this require continued follow-up; it was framed as a pilot to see what could be done. Councilmember Bloom said she still strongly believes in everything she said last week. The RFQ was changed significantly from the first RFQ. She appreciated that the arts are supported in the new RFQ. Her primary issue is open government; communication with the public in general was eliminated from the Packet Page 787 of 787