2014.11.03 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 3, 2014
6:10 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
2.(10 Minutes)
AM-7244
Meet with Historic Preservation candidate Katie Bojakowski for appointment to
Position #2 - Professional of the HPC.
3.(10 Minutes)
AM-7242
Meet with Historic Preservation Commission candidate Eric Livingston for appointment
to Position #10 of the HPC.
BUSINESS MEETING
NOVEMBER 3, 2014
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
4.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
6.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7247 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2014.
B.AM-7254 Approval of claim checks #211231 through #211336 dated October 30, 2014 for
$338,869.68 (reissued check #211317 $240.00)
C.AM-7245 Confirmation of Katie Bojakowski to Position #2 - Professional of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Packet Page 1 of 468
D.AM-7243 Confirmation of Eric Livingston to Position #10 of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
E.AM-7260 Adoption of ordinance designating the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main Street,
Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and
directing the Development Services Director or her designee to designate the site on the
official zoning map with an “HR” designation. (File No. PLN20140037).
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
8.(60 Minutes)
AM-7261
Public Hearing on the 2015 Proposed City Budget.
9.(30 Minutes)
AM-7256
Public Hearing on the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement
Program.
10.(30 Minutes)
AM-7257
Development Code Amendment for CG Zones in Highway 99 Area and Potential Action
11.(30 Minutes)
AM-7255
Potential action 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.
12.(30 Minutes)
AM-7246
Woodway Police Services Contract
13.(20 Minutes)
AM-7248
Presentation and Potential Action on the Proposed Edmonds Downtown Business
Improvement District Work Program and Budget for Year 2015
14.(10 Minutes)
AM-7250
Lighthouse Law Group PLCC Agreement Renewal
15.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
16.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
18.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 468
AM-7244 2.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Meet with Historic Preservation candidate Katie Bojakowski for appointment to Position #2 -
Professional of the HPC.
Recommendation
Mayor Earling is recommending Ms. Bojakowski's appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission
for Position #2 - Professional.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
After interviewing Ms. Bojakowski Mayor Earling recommends her appointment to "Position #2 -
Professional" of the Historic Preservation Commission. Position #2 candidates must, under 10.90.020 of
the Edmonds City Code book, "have experience in identifying, evaluating and protecting historic
resources and are selected from among the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history,
historic preservation, planning, cultural anthropology, archaeology, cultural geography, American
studies, law, and/or real estate." Ms. Bojakowski holds a BA in Anthropology and a Doctorate & Masters
in Nautical Archaeology. Ms. Bojakowski does not reside in Edmonds but under City Code 10.90.020 it
states that "in special circumstances, exceptions to the residence requirement of commission members
may be granted by the Mayor and the City Council in order to obtain representatives from those
disciplines." Position #2 has been vacant since August 2012 despite several advertisements over the past
years.
Attachments
Bojakowski_app
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/28/2014 06:12 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 05:33 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/29/2014 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/27/2014 09:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2014
Packet Page 3 of 468
Packet Page 4 of 468
AM-7242 3.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Meet with Historic Preservation Commission candidate Eric Livingston for appointment to Position #10
of the HPC.
Recommendation
Mayor Earling is recommending Eric Livingston's appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission
for Position #10.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling has met with Mr. Livingston and feels he will be an important addition to the Historic
Preservation Commission. Mr. Livingston holds degrees in Art and Technical Writing and will fill
Position #10 of the Commission which expires on 12/31/15.
Attachments
Livingston_app
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/28/2014 06:12 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 05:36 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/29/2014 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/27/2014 09:03 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2014
Packet Page 5 of 468
Packet Page 6 of 468
AM-7247 6. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
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 October 28, 2014.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 10-28-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/28/2014 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2014
Packet Page 7 of 468
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
Study Session
October 28, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember (arrived 6:50 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONFIRMATION TO POSITION #4 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council met with Architectural Design Board candidate Tom Walker. The meeting
took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers
were present for the meeting with Mr. Walker (Councilmember Bloom arrived while the meeting was in
progress) and the meeting was open to the public.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
Mayor Earling introduced his grandson, Joseph Earling, attending the meeting with other students from
Kings High School.
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 FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, MOVING ITEM 11 BEFORE ITEM 9. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Packet Page 8 of 468
Councilmember Bloom requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2014
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211134 THROUGH #211230 DATED OCTOBER 23,
2014 FOR $434,427.53. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#61241 THROUGH #61251 & CHECK 61258 FOR $471,609.49, BENEFIT CHECKS
#61252 THROUGH #61257 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $440,543.26 FOR THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 1, 2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2014
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARINER PLAZA
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION ($6,675.87), JOHN C. STILLIAN ($571.22),
AND FRONTIER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGE IN HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CITY
EMPLOYEES FROM UNITED HEALTHCARE PPO PLAN TO THE ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES (AWC) REGENCE HEALTHFIRST PPO PLAN
ITEM D: CONFIRMATION OF TOM WALKER TO POSITION #4 - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Councilmember Bloom advised she would abstain from the vote as she arrived late and the application
was very sparse, therefore she did not have enough information to vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM ABSTAINING.
5. OCTOBER IS NATIONAL SUDDEN CARDIAC ARREST AWARENESS MONTH AND IN
HONOR OF THAT MAYOR EARLING WILL READ A PROCLAMATION FOR 'THE HEART
OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT & COMMUNITY HEART SAFE PROJECT'
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring support for The Heart of Edmonds School District &
Community Heart Safe Project and encouraging all citizens to take action by visiting the Project’s website
www.heartofedmondssd.org to see many ways to support the mission of this important organization. He
presented the proclamation to Melinda and Jerry Truax. Ms. Truax thanked the City for the proclamation
and bringing attention to the Heart of Edmonds Project, commenting she lost a child to sudden cardiac
arrest. She thanked My Edmonds News for today’s telecast and invited everyone to take home a
bookmark and visit the website to learn more about sudden cardiac arrest and how they can save a life.
She also announced their gala on February 28, 2015 at the Lynnwood Convention Center.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Daniel Bevington, owner of a small environmental firm, described a product the City may want to
investigate to address flooding issues. AquaFence is an engineered, portable flood defense system that can
effectively alleviate flooding problems. He provided a pamphlet illustrating the use of AquaFence and his
business card and offered to speak with City staff about the product.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, raised several questions regarding the General Fund ending balance:
• 2012 statements report the ending fund balance for 2012 as $4.6 million, the 2015 budget has the
same figure
Packet Page 9 of 468
• 2013 budget states the ending fund balance for 2013 is expected to be $5.9 million
• 2015 budget reports the ending fund balance for 2013 was $6.8 million, nearly $1 million more in
reserves, he assumed because 2013 revenue was higher than anticipated and expenses lower than
anticipated.
• 2014 budget reports the ending fund balance as $4 million
• 2015 budget states the balance for 2014 will be approximately $7 million, $3 million more than
2014. Approximately $1.5 million is the result of revenue and expense changes but he was unable
to determine the source of the other $1.5 million
Mr. Wambolt assured he was not suggesting Mr. James’ numbers were not correct; he hoped an
explanation could be provided why the 2013 and 2014 ending fund balances were different than previous
reports. He suggested at a minimum the strategic outlook chart showing revenues, expenses and ending
balance be produced as soon as the prior year’s numbers have been finalized and ideally after any
significant budget amendments. As the City did not increase taxes by the allowable 1% last year, he
suggested the City use that banked capacity this year.
7. ANNUAL REPORT ON EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 BY SUPERINTENDENT
BROSSOIT
Diana White, President, Edmonds School Board, reported Superintendent Brossoit was home with a
sick child. She provided several highlights:
• Welcomed new School Board Member April Nowak who took Susan Phillips’ place
• Voters passed a $275 million capital construction bond in spring 2014
• Biggest undertaking this year is strategic directions:
o Effective Learning for All Students
o Equity of Opportunity
o P – 3rd Grade Early Learning
o Graduates Who Are Ready for Life
o Facilities, Enrollment and Boundaries
• Capital projects:
o The new Costco on district property near Alderwood Mall expected to open summer 2015.
o A second phase, mixed use commercial and residential, will be developed over the next 4-5
years
o The district anticipates $1 million in revenue annually from that development for use on other
capital needs in the district
• Thirteen relocatables (previously known as portables) will be sited throughout the district to ease
overcrowding and help reduce class size including three at Edmonds-Woodway High School
• During the 2016-17 school year, Lynndale Elementary School students will be bused to
Woodway Elementary while a new school is under construction
• Health and Wellness
o The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act required rewriting health and wellness policies
o Snohomish Health District awarded Edmonds School District a Healthy Communities Award
for being a positive role model for other districts in the county.
o Move 60 project in partnership with Verdant Health Commission, an afterschool activity
program
• Commended Melinda and Jerry Truax for their work related to sudden cardiac arrest
• Two high school robotics teams from Edmonds-Woodway and Lynnwood High Schools went to
the world championship robotics competition
• Edmonds Heights K-12 awarded best musical in the State by the Fifth Avenue Theater Company
for their production of “Pippin”
• As a result of the technology levy passed by voters and Google’s Chromebook Pilot Program,
every student at Alderwood Middle and Cedar Valley School was provided a computer
• Voted the best community for music education for the sixth year in a row
Packet Page 10 of 468
Councilmember Mesaros asked about enrollment projections for the next 5-10 years. Ms. White answered
enrollment this year was up 78 students. There is a shifting demographic in the district with growth in the
north and declining enrollment in the south. While there are enough classrooms, they are not in the right
places. There are efforts to make programs more attractive to move some students to another area.
Schools are also being relocated; for example the new Alderwood Middle School will be next to Martha
Lake Elementary. She summarized enrollment is flat or growing mildly.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE SCHUMACHER BUILDING
LOCATED AT 316 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION. (FILE NO. PLN20140037)
Senior Planner Kernen advised the Schumacher Building has been nominated for consideration for
placemen ton the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The property owners nominated the house and
signed the authorization form. He described the effects of listing on the register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
• Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner
must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission
• May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation
He identified the building’s location on an aerial map, explaining it is located on a block with, and
connected to, structures of a similar age. The building directly east was the site of the Kingdon’s General
Store, constructed in 1910. East of Kingdon’s General Store is the Bank of Edmonds, constructed in
1907, that is currently on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. William A. Schumacher constructed
the building as well as the Bank of Edmonds building. Further east across 4th Avenue is the Beeson
Building, that was constructed in 1909. All these buildings maintain much of their historic character and
add greatly to the ambiance of downtown Edmonds.
He reviewed the designation criteria and how the building meets the criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds
o This commercial building is associated with the early commercial development of Edmonds
• Has integrity
o Building is a largely intact example of Western False Front storefront building. A photo that
appears to be from the 1970’s shows a different false front from the historic period of
significance. A review of the permit system indicates that the building was restored in 1999
or 2000 to matches the appearance of the building during its period of significance
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old
o The building was constructed in 1900 and is 114 years old
• Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A - K
o Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of
design…
Building is an example of Western False Front building. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth-century, false front commercial buildings were typically wood frame, one to
two stories in height with a rectangular floor plan and a front gabbled roof
o Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political,
aesthetic, engineering or architectural history.
The Schumacher Building is associated with the early commercial development of
Edmonds. This building was the home of Heberein’s Hardware Store for years and in the
1940’s its occupant was the Furniture Exchange
Packet Page 11 of 468
o Associated with lives of persons significant in local history
Building constructed by William A. Schumacher, the city treasurer who founded the
Bank of Edmonds. Schumacher also constructed the Bank of Edmonds building at 326
Main Street that also is on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Packet includes an
Edmonds Patch article regarding William Schumacher
He described significant features of the building:
• Two-story rectangular building with a false front making the building appear taller on the front
than on the exposed south side.
• First floor north primary facade contains glazed storefront with a recessed entry with double
doors, wood framed windows and band of transom windows.
• Five evenly spaced double-hung windows on the second floor, notable for their vertical
proportions and simple two over two subdivision.
• West facade features single and pairs of double-hung wood windows on the first floor and five,
evenly spaced paired double- hung windows at the second floor, each with planter boxes
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing on September 11, 2014 and found the
nomination meets the criterion, is eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places,
and that the exterior contains significant features. The HPC recommends the property be listed on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
The packet contains an ordinance; as this is a study session, he recommended the ordinance be scheduled
on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas found the research very interesting, especially the comparison of the
building’s past to present.
Council President Buckshnis particularly liked the Patch article regarding William Schumacher and
suggested putting it on the website.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to provide testimony and he closed public participation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO FORWARD THE ORDINANCE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR
APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Engineer Rob English explained in September the Council reviewed the process and timeline for
updating the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and staff responded to
Council questions. He provided photographs and described:
• Five Corners Roundabout
o Artwork installed
o Streetlights and lighting within roundabout powered
o Pedestrian rail installed at the northeast corner
o Landscaping underway
o Expect substantial completion by the of this week followed by punch list work
o Marshbank Construction worked well and efficiently
• Chip Seal Application
o First year in many years to have substantial budget for pavement preservation
o Applied on 2nd Avenue, 72nd Avenue and 73rd Avenue
Packet Page 12 of 468
o Pilot program that will be monitored over the next several years
• Pavement grind/overlay
o 100th Avenue south of SR104
o Olympic View Drive
He highlighted 112 Street Fund projects:
• Pavement Preservation Program
o 2014 pavement project
5.6 paved lane miles (100th and OVD)
2.3 chip seal lane miles (72nd, 73rd and 2nd Ave)
o 2015 pavement projects
$1.56M proposed budget
220th pavement overlay 76th -84th (2015)
• Five Corners Roundabout (construction)
• 228th corridor improvements (2015-16), coupled with Phase 3 Highway 99 lighting
• 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan Update (2015)
• SR104 Transportation Corridor Study (2015)
• 76th/212th Intersection improvements (2016)
• 76th Ave Re -striping 220th-OVD (2016)
• Trackside Warning System/Quiet Zone (proposed)
• Walkway Projects
o Sunset Walkway
o 15th St SW Walkway SR104/8th Ave (Const)
o 3rd Ave ADA curb ramps Main St/Pine St (2014
o 238th St SW Walkway 100th Ave/104th Ave (2015)
o 236th St SW Walkway SR104/Madrona Elementary (2015)
Mr. English provided photographs of several projects and highlighted Utility Fund projects:
• Water Utility Fund (421)
o 10,000 feet watermain replacement (Construction)
o Replacement of 2 PRV’s (Construction)
o Overlay 2,000 feet of street affected by waterline replacements (Completed)
o 7,000 feet of watermain replacement (2015)
o Replacement of 2 PRV’s (2015)
• Stormwater Utility Fund (422)
o Vactor Waste Handling Facility Upgrade (Const)
o 4th Ave Improvements & Infiltration work (Const)
o 238th St. Drainage Improvements (2015)
o Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek
o Dayton St. and SR104 (Pre-Design)
o Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction (Pre-Design)
• Sewer Utility Fund (423)
o 4,800 feet sewermain replacement (Construction)
o 1,500 feet CIPP sewermain rehabilitation (2015)
o 4,000 feet sewermain replacement (2015)
o WWTP Improvements (2015)
He also highlighted sustainable improvements:
• Stormwater Infiltration/Bioretention
• Perrinville Creek Basin
o Two Roadside bioretention systems
o Infiltration System at Seaview Park
Packet Page 13 of 468
• 228th Corridor Improvements Infiltration
• 15th St Walkway Infiltration
• 238th St. Walkway Infiltration
• 105/106th Ave Infiltration
• New infiltration system near 102nd Ave
• Infiltration near 107th Pl W
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite completed and in progress projects in the 2014 CIP:
• Completed installation of new play area at City Park
• Completed design development of City Park Spray area
o Out to bid late 2014
o Future budget adjustment for SEPA mitigation pedestrian improvements at City Park
• Dayton Street Plaza (2nd & Dayton)
o Breaking ground next month/complete in 2015
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
o Historical markers
o Arts Commission temporary artwork project
• Yost Pool Boiler replacement
• Marina Beach Master Plan
• Waterfront acquisition (continue to 2015)
• PROS plan completion
• Community Cultural Plan completion
She highlighted projects in the Parks CFP 2014/15:
• Woodway High School Athletic Complex
o $655,000 set aside
o $500,000 School District
o $2.5M Verdant HC
o $750,000 State appropriation
o Will required a partnership agreement with ESD
• NEW: Locate, construct and maintain a downtown restroom
She reviewed Parks CIP 2015 projects:
• REET 125
o Additional repairs needed at Yost: added another $120,000 next year for spa rebuild
o Anderson Center stage
o Meadowdale Clubhouse playground
o Meadowdale playfields
Will require extending partnership agreement
• REET 125/132
o Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek (132)
o Marina Beach Park, Master Plan around Willow Creek concept, playground replacement
(125)
• Park Construction Fund 132 (no dedicated funding)
o Completion of Dayton Street Plaza
o Completion of City Park
o Waterfront property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation
o Woodway High School Athletic complex construction
o Fishing Pier Rehab
o Civic Center Acquisition
Doing appraisals
Packet Page 14 of 468
Applied for $1 million RCO grant
Ms. Hite highlighted upcoming issues:
• State legislature stipulation for REET that allows cities to use 30% or $100,000 of REET revenue
for M&O
o Expires end of 2016
o Edmonds budgets $120,000/year from REET for M&O
o Those expenditures not allowed unless legislature extends the stipulation
o On the City’s legislative agenda
• Civic Center acquisition
o No decision made regarding source of funds for purchase
o Fund 132 includes a placeholder of $3 million
o Price is unknown at this time
o If received $1 million State grant, City will need to identify source for remaining $2 million
• Meadowdale Playfields and Woodway High School partnership agreements
• Park Impact Fee revenue of $500,000 projected by end 2015
o Those funds not programmed
o Use restricted to future growth
o May be a source for to fund pedestrian improvements at City Park
Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP schedule:
• September 23 – City Council; Introduction
• September 24 – Planning Board
• October 28- City Council Meeting
• November 3rd – Public Hearing
• November 18th – CFP Adoption & CIP Approval
Councilmember Petso referred to the proposed schedule and asked whether changes made during the
budget process to major projects or reallocating funds would impact the CIP and therefore the CIP and
budget approvals should be done together. Mr. English agreed it would make sense to approve them
together if changes were made to the projects.
Councilmember Petso commented the Sunset Walkway project began as a walkway project but on page
228 of the packet the description now includes the multi-use aspect of the project. It was her
understanding the jury was still out on whether it would be a walkway or a multiuse pathway. Public
Works Director Phil Williams responded when the City applied for the grant it was with the intention of
building a multiuse pathway. The current trial project marks it as a multiuse pathway and allows use by
non-motorized users. At the end of the trial period, the intent is to evaluate the results and make changes
if necessary. It would be problematic to abandon other non-motorized users up front before the trial is
complete. The grant suggests those users will be accommodated; the only way to successfully tell the
granting agency that the City changed its mind would be with good reason. He summarized the intent of
the trial project was to evaluate all users.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Council approval of this description would be construed as the
Council’s blessing to seek construction funding for a multiuse project or wait until the trial was
completed. Mr. Williams answered staff would not apply for funding, accept funding and build a multi-
use pathway without involving the Council and citizens in the decision. He suggested waiting a year to
conduct the trial in all seasons of the year and then evaluating the results.
Council President Buckshnis suggested approval of the budget follow approval of the CIP. She suggested
removing the $200,000 for the Sunset Ave Walkway. She requested Councilmembers provide any
budget-related questions to staff. Councilmember Petso pointed out approval of the CIP/CFP needed to
Packet Page 15 of 468
precede adoption of the budget because changes made to the CIP/CFP could affect the budget. Council
President Buckshnis agreed approval of the budget should precede adoption of the CIP/CFP.
Councilmember Johnson referred to last week’s presentations regarding the ground lease for the Edmonds
Senior Center (ESC) and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). She distributed a portion of the
Restoration Plan in the SMP that identifies an opportunity at the ESC for relocation of the parking lot to
restore the beach habitat. She relayed the restoration objective and monitoring, noting there is no funding
identified, it is a long term timeline and the priority is medium. She asked how this relates to the ESC,
grant opportunities, requirements for project evaluation, and whether this can be identified as part of the
ESC project or other project. There are two projects in the CIP/CFP for the ESC: 1) a new facility, and 2)
the parking lot. As the ESC’s proposed project is only the building, the City needs to be aware of its
responsibility regarding the property.
Ms. Hite responded the description in the CFP is the building but it could be expanded, noting
reconstruction of the building will necessitate rehab of the surrounding land and footprint. She offered to
expand the project description and project benefit rationale to connect it to the PROS Plan and Strategic
Plan including adding a generic description that it will be considered in conjunction with the SMP.
Councilmember Johnson asked for an estimate of the restoration and how it would impact the parking lot.
Ms. Hite recommended expanding the description this year and adding a cost estimate next year during
the budget process.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Sunset Ave Walkway, acknowledging staff prepared a list of
expenditures for the $20,000. To assist her in making a decision regarding the project in the CIP/CFP, she
asked for the final projected cost, what is included in the total cost estimate, how much has been spent so
far and what it was spent on. She asked that that information be provided in the packet for the public
hearing. Mr. Williams explained when the City applied for the Transportation Alternatives Grant in 2013,
it included a cost estimate of $1.876 million. An inflationary factor was applied to the cost estimate in the
CIP in the year of construction (2018) which is the $2,099,000. He clarified there had not been enough
design done to prepare a disciplined cost estimate so there would be some variability. The cost will
depend on whether utilities are included and done in advance of the project similar to what was done at
the roundabout. Some not-so-great waterlines in Sunset Avenue could be included in the project.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated her request to have the information in writing in advance of the
meeting. Mr. Williams advised he will include the information that is available.
Councilmember Petso observed in addition to over $1 million in pavement preservation, there is $1
million for repaving a stretch of 220th that lies between Edmonds and Snohomish County. She asked
whether any progress had been made in encouraging Snohomish County to partner on the project to
reduce the cost to the City. Mr. Williams answered there has been no commitment or interest from
Snohomish County. The estimated cost of that project is $1,040,000; the City’s match is $260,000 and a
grant for the difference.
Councilmember Petso observed the timeline for the Alternatives Study had moved out to 2019 and asked
the rationale for not doing it sooner. Mr. Williams explained the first three years of CIP/CFP are financial
constrained; to include a project in those years requires an identified funding source. Funding is being
sought via the legislature as well as other sources but because there is no commitment for funding, it is in
the latter years of the CIP.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Dayton Street and SR104 drainage improvements, observing
most of the money is in first three years. She recalled staff has defined the source of the flooding problem;
she asked what contributes to the flooding. Mr. Williams summarized it is simply too much water running
off the properties in the bowl, nowhere for it to go and that is the lowest spot. The project will require a
Packet Page 16 of 468
pump station to keep up with the flows in a certain size storm event; a project to prevent all possible
future flooding would be impossible. Councilmember Johnson recalled factors in the past were king tides
coupled with sediment in the drainage basin from Shellabarger Creek under SR104. Mr. Williams
answered the daylighting of Willow Creek and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh have environmental
value as well as serve as an effective stormwater catchment and treatment basin. Restoring channels in the
marsh will improve the marsh’s capacity to accept stormwater so more of Shellabarger Creek will go
through the marsh rather than into the intersection of Dayton and SR104. He cautioned daylighting of
Willow creek will not stop the flooding at Dayton and Main; the pump station is also needed.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that restoration of the marsh and daylighting Willow
Creek and opening tide gates will help the natural function of the marsh. She asked whether it would be
better to allocate the $2 million to the marsh restoration instead of the lift station. Mr. Williams answered
the projects are proceeding parallel; expenditures on one may be matching funds for expenditures on the
other. He hoped to obtain funding partners such as WSDOT Ferries Division, the Port, private property
owners, etc. Councilmember Johnson recommended revisiting this in the future to ensure the projects are
kept in balance.
Councilmember Johnson recalled discussions with WSDOT about sediment in the pipes and asked the
status of the project. Mr. Williams responded the City has asked WSDOT to work on the culverts.
WSDOT initially said they have no funding, but have recently shown more interest in a project and are
working to identify funding to address their responsibility, the capacity and operation of the culverts.
Council President Buckshnis commented the design for Willow Creek would be on the north and go up.
The marsh east of SR104 will continue to flood until the culverts are changed. She supported installing
the lift station sooner rather than later. Mr. Williams commented the projects are all necessary to solve the
problem; without doing them all, water is just moved from one location to another, solving one problem
but creating another. Council President Buckshnis suggested using the treatment plant pump station. Mr.
Williams answered that does not appear to be an option.
Councilmember Peterson relayed his intent to ask to add $10,000 from the Council’s funds to help fund
the design phase of the Veterans Plaza. Ms. Hite recommended placing the project in the Parks 132 fund.
Councilmember Johnson expressed support for the Planning Board’s and Economic Development
Commission’s recommendation for a downtown restroom, noting that is consistent with the Strategic
Action Plan.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the project to construct sidewalks on Olympic Avenue from Main
Street to Puget Drive, observing it was a priority 3 with a projected cost $1.2 million but was not
scheduled until 2021-2025. The project is meant to provide improved access to Edmonds Elementary and
Yost Park. From walking in that area she knew there was a lot of fast traffic. She questioned why it was
not scheduled until 2021 when it was a priority 3. Mr. English answered the Council could move it into
the second three years that are unconstrained. The challenge has been funding which is the reason it is in
the out years. Councilmember Bloom questioned why a priority 3 project related to improved safety
walking to school and access to a park was not moved up on the CIP, noting the City was working on
Sunset Avenue which was a short project and much more costly. She asked how priorities are developed.
Mr. English answered citizen input, funding and ranking in the Transportation Plan. Councilmember
Bloom requested the Council consider moving that project up and consider the prioritization of other
walkway projects.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Main & 9th project, noting the materials refer to a $10,000 interim
solution in $2006 to install 2 lanes northbound and southbound directions (page 21 of CFP), convert all-
way to signalized intersection (page 22 of CFP), $10,000 in 2016 for a mini roundabout (page 29 of CFP),
and install a traffic signal (page 40). Mr. English explained when the 2009 Transportation Plan was
Packet Page 17 of 468
prepared Walnut & 9th and Main & 9th were identified as intersections with deficient LOS and
improvements were identified for both intersections. An interim solution, restriping lanes, was developed
and implemented at Walnut & 9th for under $10,000. The same interim solution was identify for Main &
9th but before it was implemented, installation of a mini roundabout was considered. Before installing a
mini -roundabout, staff wants to assess the improvement provided by the Five Corners roundabout.
Councilmember Bloom asked when that decision will be made, noting both are included in the CFP in
2016. Mr. English answered it could be either. He offered to clarify, identifying both as interim solutions.
The signal in later years was a permanent solution to solve LOS. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a
mini roundabout would preclude a signal. Mr. English agreed it would. He advised funds are needed to
engineer which solution is preferable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Transportation Committee prioritized a number of
walkways. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred that process for identifying
priorities. She asked how many sidewalks are on the plan. Mr. English answered there is a long walkway
list and a short walkway list. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented reprioritizing projects affects
other projects. Mr. English agreed, advising the Transportation Plan update that is underway could be a
venue for evaluating priorities. A member of the Transportation Committee at that time, Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with reprioritizing projects without any basis.
Council President Buckshnis suggested putting Council questions in a Q&A format and attaching them to
the November 3agenda. She advised approval of the CFP/CIP will be moved to the December 2 meeting.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
11. PRESENTATION ON THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN (SAP) IMPLEMENTATION
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty relayed the Council approved
the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) on April 2, 2103. This year the City contracted with Cynthia Berne of
Long Bay Enterprises Inc. to provide an implementation plan for the SAP, along with a technical review
and update. He anticipated her work will conclude in the first quarter of 2015, for which a $5,000 carry-
forward request of the original Council-approved $40,000 budget for this work is in the proposed 2015
budget.
Ms. Berne distributed a summary of general statistics, a sample of worksheet, and a summary of
information on four outstanding action items for which a primary lead has not been identified. She
provided general statistics:
• Total number of action items: 88 (due to duplicate numbers used in SAP)
• Action Items with committed Primary Lead: 84
o Chamber: 3
o City Council: 3
o Development Services Department: 15
o Economic Development Department: 23
o Edmonds Center for the Arts: 1
o Edmonds Downtown Alliance: 3
o Edmonds Senior Center: 2
o Mayor’s Office: 4
o Parks & Recreation: 13
o Police Department: 1
o Public Works: 16
o Swedish-Edmonds: 1
Packet Page 18 of 468
• Action Items with unconfirmed Primary Lead: 0
• Action Items without a Primary Lead: 4
• Completed Action Items:
1. 1a.12 Development Regulations: Amend mixed use development standards to allow higher,
mixed use density in the Firdale Village area. This was completed.
2. 1b.9 Financing – create a downtown Business Improvement District. Created Downtown
Edmonds Business Improvement District.
3. 3a.6 Yost Pool – financing: Create and implement a long term financial and operational
strategy for the updating/upgrading, refurbishment and retrofitting of the current Yost Pool
facility. Many of the facilities have been updated including the efficiency equipment, replaced
boiler and retrofitted showers.
4. 3a.7 Public view preservation: Identify public view corridors and view sheds in the bowl and
create appropriate public view protection overlay districts, ordinances, and other measures to
preserve and protect them. Downtown corridor is protected by height limits and codes. The
view corridor was established in 2005 by the Downtown Plan.
5. 5a.6 Fiscal sustainability: Create an alternative mechanism other than the City of Edmonds
General Fund with which to finance parks and recreation programs and services. Parks
Impact fee has been implemented.
• Action Items started: 62
• Action Items not started: 21
She explained in developing the primary leads, she met with over 30 organizations and departments.
Edmonds is a great community, there are many very committed people, everyone was very willing to
meet and talk with her. There is a heightened awareness of the SAP in the community as well as staff.
She reviewed action items that have major financial challenges:
Action Item Strategic Objective Notes
1b.4
Shoreline/Waterfront
Develop a strategy for the combined shoreline
(east/west of rail lines) from the Port to the
Underwater Dive Park and from the waterfront
to the downtown that increases public access
and recreational opportunities
Working Group created a
roadmap
3a.8 Yost Pool –
Improvement
(New Aquatics Center)
Develop and/or expand Yost Pool to include
outdoor and indoor leisure pool elements,
therapy pool, party rooms and concessions, and
possibly other recreation physical conditioning,
courts, and gymnasium uses
No funding source available at
this time. To date there has been
not priority to bring this to
Council for a vote. Possible voter
initiative.
4a.1 BNSF Railroad Participate in the environmental impact
assessment process related to a proposal to
build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point in
Bellingham. Identify required improvements in
Edmonds to mitigate extra tracks, train
volumes, dust, noise, and potential conflicts
with ferry terminal and waterfront pedestrian,
bike, and vehicular traffic
Needs to be divided into multiple
action items.
4a.7 Highway 99 Create transportation improvement program
and project for Highway 99 to improve traffic
flow, transit connections, pedestrian streetscape
and to encourage mixed use project
developments similar to what has been recently
completed in Shoreline and is planned in
Everett and Lynnwood
Very complex, difficult to seek
funds for everything, may be able
to identify funds for portions
4a.8 Intermodal Station Develop an integrated Amtrak, Sounder,
Community Transit, shuttle, ferry, bike, and
pedestrian transfer facility on the waterfront to
Very complex, huge undertaking;
2008 cost estimate: $237 million
Packet Page 19 of 468
promote accessibility and connectivity to and
within Edmonds
4a.9 Waterfront Connection Work to establish an emergency and everyday
access over the railroad tracks and ferry
terminal lanes for pedestrians bound for
shoreline and waterfront attractions from
Harbor Square, Salish Crossing , and the
downtown
Alternatives analysis, with an
estimated cost of $1 million,
needs to be done. May be more
than one project. May not be
feasible to accommodate both
public and emergency vehicles.
She distributed a sample worksheet. Her final report/presentation in March 2015 will include:
• Worksheet for each Primary Lead
• Recommended goals for next year
• Three alternatives for facilitating implementation of SAP
• Statistical data
• Summary of efforts over the past year
• Technical review for clarification of the SAP document
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmembers Peterson and Johnson and she served on the
SAP Work Group. She found it helpful to have the Council involved in that process and to help them
understand the issues. Ms. Berne agreed the Work Group has been very helpful and attendance has been
excellent. The materials provided to Council tonight include a status report on the four actions items for
which a primary lead has not been identified.
Councilmember Peterson referred to completed Action Item 5a.6 Fiscal Sustainability, pointing out that
the use of Park Impact Fee revenue was very restricted. He was wary of identifying that as a completed
action item, recalling funding sources such as a parks levy or a Metropolitan Park District.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Item 4.A.7, agreeing this is big project but the first sentence, create
transportation improvement program, or master planning process, would be a place to start.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Cascade Art Museum at Salish Crossing, recalling the CIP/CFP
includes a Cultural Arts Needs Study and Cultural Arts Center and Museum. She asked how those two
ideas relate. Ms. Berne did not have an answer. Councilmember Johnson suggested that Council continue
to ask that question.
Councilmember Johnson referred to Action Item 1b.4 Shoreline Waterfront, pointing out a SMP
restoration project includes relocating the Senior Center parking lot. Ms. Berne suggested adding that to
the roadmap.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Action Item 4.A.9 Waterfront Connection and the statement in the
notes that the requirement to accommodate both public and emergency vehicles may not be practical. It
was her understanding “public” meant pedestrian access not vehicles. Ms. Berne advised the Work Group
discussed the objective and determined it was public and emergency vehicles and pedestrians.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated the intent was emergency vehicles and pedestrian access and asked why
that was not practical. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered it would be difficult to find funding
for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access that served no other users. Ms. Berne said impractical was in
the context of funding which was the reason the project was in the list of action items that have major
financial challenges. Councilmember Bloom suggested rewording the sentence to be clearer.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the potential performance measures under Action Item 4a.9, a
crossing constructed to improve access/safety for pedestrians/vehicles, explaining that was the reason it
was identified as providing both vehicular and pedestrian access. Although the strategic objective was not
clear but the potential performance measure was. Ms. Berne advised the technical document she creates
Packet Page 20 of 468
for clarification will address issues and recommendations for moving forward. Mr. Doherty advised there
are some places in the document where the wording does not make sense. The Council could adopt a
revised SAP with technical clarifications.
Councilmember Petso explained the foundation for the SAP was a voter survey. As the SAP is rewritten
for clarification, she suggested ensuring it reflects the voter survey. She recognized the survey was 2½
years old.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the strategic objective for Action Item 4a.9 does not specify
whether it is pedestrian or vehicle access but the performance measure does. She agreed with
Councilmember Petso that technical changes should not alter the intent. Ms. Berne clarified the technical
document will only be a recommendation.
Councilmember Petso was not concerned if the intent of some items was changed slightly as long as it
was done purposely and with public comment rather than done inadvertently.
10. PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT
This item will be rescheduled.
12. PRESENTATION OF EDMONDS HOUSING PROFILE
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Christina Gallant, Policy Analyst, Alliance for
Housing Affordability, who is working with each communities on data for the Comprehensive Plan
update.
Ms. Gallant explained the Alliance includes 13 cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County and the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County. The goal of the Alliance, inspired by ARCH in King County, is
to find ways to share resources for housing planning, new opportunity and areas for common
collaboration between cities. She has been preparing housing profiles for all members this year; next year
she will begin a technical assistance role, assisting cities with their Comprehensive Plan update,
determining strategies and helping with implementation as well as general housing education. She
reviewed housing considerations:
• Diverse needs and preferences
• Adequacy and safety
• Proximity to transportation, jobs, and services
• Affordability
o Household Income Levels
2013 HUD regional median household income: $86,700
Extremely Low: <30% AMI
Very Low: 30-50% AMI
Low: 50-80% AMI
Moderate: 80-95% AMI
Middle: 95-120% AMI
She provided context for income levels:
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Teachers Social Workers Accountants
Engineers
Packet Page 21 of 468
Food Service
Employees - Line
Cooks, Servers,
Dishwashers,
Baristas
Medical & Dental
Assistants, Home
Health Aides
Real Estate
Agents & Brokers
Police Officers &
Firefighters
Veterinarians
Manicurists Security Guards Graphic Designers Architects Web Developers
Hairdressers EMTs &
Paramedics
Electricians Construction
Mgrs
Childcare
Workers
Receptionists Paralegals Registered Nurses Physical
Therapists
Financial
Advisors
Edmonds households in these income brackets:
82% cost
burdened
63% cost
burdened
47% cost
burdened
38% cost
burdened
22% cost
burdened
She explained the information in the profile includes project status, intended use and audience, content
and presentation and data sources. She reviewed information for Edmonds:
• Population and community
o Stable population with modest growth
Accommodating growth may still be a challenge
o Median income - $73,072
o Smaller households compared to County overall
69% of households 1-2 people vs. 58% across County
o 48% of renters and 34% of homeowners are cost burdened
o Cost burden by income level and housing tenure, City of Edmonds
Income Level Renters Owners All
Extremely Low 79% 82% 82%
Very Low 81% 86% 63%
Low 29% 46% 475
Moderate 13% 43% 38%
Middle 7% 26% 22%
o Existing Housing Stock
Construction concentrated between 1950 and 1989
57% single family homes
29% renter-occupied
42% of homes two bedrooms or less in size, 69% of households one to two people
2012 median home sale - $339,975
- Third highest average assessed value in 2014 - $351,100
o Assisted Housing
Subsidized units
- 178 Section 8 Vouchers
- 125 other units in 6 properties
Workforce units
- 201 units in 3 properties
o Assisted Units by Income Level Served
Extremely Low 233
Very Low 79
Low 194
Packet Page 22 of 468
Moderate 2
Total 508
o Market Rental Housing
Average Rent
(With Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Minimum
Hourly Wage
Minimum Annual
Wage
1 Bed $87 $17.06 $35,480
2 Bed $1,097 $21.10 $43,880
3 Bed $1,679 $32.29 $67,160
4 Bed $2,545 $48.94 $101,800
5 Bed $2,844 $54.69 $113,760
o Affordability
1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4+Bed
Extremely Low No No No No
Very Low Limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes
What can be done:
• Planning process can support affordability
• Working with community partners
• Exploring new opportunities with AHA
Councilmember Petso asked whether homeowners in Edmonds are financially burdened but not renters.
Ms. Gallant answered both are financially burdened. Overall 48% of Edmonds renters spend more than
30% of their income on housing and 34% of homeowners spend more than 30%.
For Councilmember Petso, Ms. Gallant explained larger units which are typically single family are less
affordable. Councilmember Petso asked whether Edmonds had a shortage of large rental units. Ms.
Gallant answered compared to household sizes, Edmonds has an oversupply of large units.
Councilmember Petso asked what “limited” meant in the last table. Ms. Gallant explained limited meant
there were a limited number of units for that income level, no meant that income level was entirely out of
range for the rent. Limited was not quantity of units compared to quantity of people, it only compared rent
to income.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the goal was to ensure 100% of Edmonds residents have affordable
housing for their income level. Ms. Gallant answered that would be great but probably not feasible. It is
up to the City to determine the degree to which housing challenges can be met. Councilmember Mesaros
suggested a goal could be to improve by 10%. Ms. Hope commented that could be addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan Housing element.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 60 MINUTES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION
CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, PETERSON, AND PETSO AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Buckshnis thanked Ms. Gallant for her report, commenting it was well written and easy
to understand and she urged the public to read it. She was glad the City was part of the Alliance.
13. STAFF PRESENTATIONS ON THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
Packet Page 23 of 468
Finance Director Scott James identified where the budget can be found on the City’s website (2015
Budgeting on the home page). He reviewed changes made to the budget since it was presented (new since
last week in italics):
Budget
Book
Page #
Description
Cash
Increase
(Decrease)
General Fund
39 Executive Assistant Schedule Salary Step Increase ($4,314)
43 Advertising Expense ($4,200)
86 Small Equipment (Reduce DP #13) $2,200
26 Business Licenses & Fees (Increase Animal License Fee Revenue $27,770
26 Public Safety (Increase Grant Revenue from Dept. of Justice) 43,970
36 Public Safety (Increase Woodway Law Protection Revenue) $7,500
Impacts to General Fund $32,926
Fund 112 Street Construction
163 Construction (DP #36) ($100,000)
163 Interfund Services (DP #36) ($6,000)
Impacts to Fund 112 Ending Cash ($106,000)
Fund 126 REET 1
166 Construction $200,000
166 Land ($200,000)
Impacts to Fund 126 Ending Cash $0
Fund 132 Parks Construction
168 Land $1,300,000
168 Construction ($1,300,000)
168 Construction $200,000
Impacts to Fund 132 Ending Cash ($200,000)
Police Department
Police Chief Al Compaan reviewed the following:
• 2013 Activities
o Part 1 Crimes Solved – 33.1%
o Felony Filings - 269
o Traffic Citations and Infractions – 5,472
o DUI Arrests - 132
o Total Misdemeanor Arrests - 1,190
o Animal Control Incidents - 1,213
o Parking Citations - 1,462
o Firearms Related Requests (CPL, Transfers) - 890
o Public Disclosure Requests - 1,639
o Traffic Collisions Investigated – 710
o Domestic incidences investigated – 177
• 2014 Activities
o Completed major update of Policy Manual, posted on webpage
o Edmonds Police Foundation and Edmonds Police Department hosted Edmonds Night Out on
July 29
o Hired two police officers in January and March
o Hiring two police officers in November to back fill open positions
Packet Page 24 of 468
o Two vacancies in the process of filling – extremely competitive market
o Promoted one Assistant Police Chief
o Promoted one Corporal
• Decision Packages
o DP # 12 - Investigations Small Equipment, $9,730
o DP # 13 - Property Management Small Equipment, $3,200
• Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Salaries 7,427,044 7,344,029 7,692,944
Overtime 402,456 393,000 396,241
Supplies/Equip 160,310 152,275 179,940 Small Equip DP #12, 13
Prof. Services 114,662 94,763 114,662
Other 100,967 83,724 101,582
Rental/Lease 608,688 608,688 575,500
Intergovernmental 10,237 0 10,237
Total Budget 8,824,364 8,676,479 9,071,106
• Revenues
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Intergovernmental 44,600 51,500 49,500
Special Events 38,300 38,300 38,300
Animal License &
Adoptions 59,656 17,000 44,800
Grants 13,676 13,676 14,479
Other 9,775 10,800 10,800
Total 166,007 131,276 157,879
Mayor Earling commented it has been a high priority to bring back staffing levels in the Police
Department.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about revenue from special events. Chief Compaan advised it is
reimbursement from the Chamber for police security services at the Taste of Edmonds, July 4th parade
and fireworks as well as events for the Edmonds School District. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
whether the revenue and expenditure would be a wash. Council President Buckshnis answered yes but it
has always been reported in that manner. Chief Compaan advised it is received as revenue so it is reported
in revenue; the expense is reported in expenditures.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested providing statistics for 2012 compared to 2013. He noted the Police
Department wants to have fewer crimes, yet more crimes require more police officers. Chief Compaan
advised the 2012/2013 annual report is posted on the webpage.
Public Works - Utilities
Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed:
• 2014 Accomplishments:
Stormwater
o Cleaned/Maintained 2,499 of our 8,803 storm structures
o Inspected 270 of the 529 private Stormwater facilities
o Repaired a failed storm system on SR524 that prevented the loss of Puget Drive. All done in-
house at low cost
Packet Page 25 of 468
o 12 in-house stormwater system upgrades to provide flooding relief
o Removed 667 tons of debris from roads and catch basins. Debris reused as cover soil at
landfills
o improved our management of storm system sediment at PW Ops complex which produces
less sediment in the sewer system
o Responded to 64 stormwater related action requests generated by residents
Water
o installed EZ Valves in several locations after last year’s purchase of the system
o Made sanitary improvements to our water reservoirs. Improved vent screening, overflow pipe
screening and installed air gaps. Worked with DOH
o Installed 125 radio read meters.
o 10,000 ft. of water main replacement
o Replaced 2 PRV’s
o 2,000 lineal feet of pavement overlay on City streets
Sewer
o 4,800 ft. of sewer main replacement
o Completed extensive upgrades at 9 pump stations.
o Replaced flat sewer mains with new laterals to property lines.
o Installed a different style of impeller at pump station #9 to help pass solids
o Successful completion of PLC 100 replacement.
o First metering station to include Solar Power. This project has a 3-year ROI.
o Received the Outstanding Plant Performance award for 2013.
• Challenges/Opportunities
o 4,800 ft. of sewer main replacement
o !0,000 ft. of water main replacement
o Begin video assessment of storm drain system
o WWTP Outfall Pipe upgrade
o 2nd year of a three-year rate adjustment: Water – 9.0%, Sewer – 9.5%, Stormwater – 4.5%
• Decision Packages
o Purchase two VMS signs (37)
o Re-drafting and updating Utility Standard Design details $75,000 (40)
o Acquire, train, and bring on-line new asset management software for the three utilities
$25,000 (41)
o Re-write the Stormwater Code sections of the ECC to comply with NPDES Phase II permit
$132,500 (42)
o Purchase, set-up, and roll out a new emergency generator for the sewer lift stations that don’t
already have on-site alternative power sources $80,000 (43)
• Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Utilities:
o Water
o Sewer
o Stormwater
32,125,088 26,321,536 30,643,994
Public Works Roads (Fund 111 and 112)
Mr. Williams reviewed the following:
• 2014 Accomplishments
o Five Corners Roundabout has achieved Substantial completion
o 2014 Pavement Preservation Program
5.6 Paved Lane Miles
Packet Page 26 of 468
2.3 Chip Seal Lane Miles
o Right of Way Certified for 228th/HWY99 Corridor Improvements
o 15th St. Walkway Improvements
o 3rd Ave ADA Ramps (CDBG)
o Created GIS based inventory of our 7,255 Street Signs. Upgraded 708 signs to the new
industry reflectivity standards
o Provided crack sealing to 105 road segments, an asphalt surface treatment designed to
prolong useful life
o Made repairs to 35 faded X-Walks and 79 separate lane markings/symbols
o Removal of 229 trip hazards VIA grinding or replacement of concrete panels reducing the
city’s potential liability in trip claims. The department also did a city wide survey marking
and documenting potential trip hazards
o Upgraded five (5) old signal cabinets
o Provided layout and lane markings for the city’s overlay program reducing the project costs
o Responded to 247 Action Requests providing needed services to Edmonds residents
o 66 independent civic event banner requests
o Responded to 45 callouts for anything from a down trees to lane closure requests
• Challenges/Opportunities 2015
o Working with City Council and the State legislature to develop an ongoing, stable funding
source for pavement preservation
o Reaching consensus regarding the use of chip seals in our efforts to preserve pavement
• Decision Packages
o $1.3 M for pavement preservation (33) plus $260,000 carried over for paving 220th from
84th to 76th (39)
o SR104 Corridor Analysis carry-over
o $106,000 (36)
o • Trackside (Wayside) Warning Horn System $50,000 (34)
o CTR Program $1,000 (32)
• Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Fund 111/112 11,293,476 5,666,993 9,109,422
Administration, Engineering, Facilities, Fleet
Mr. Williams reviewed the following:
• 2014 Accomplishments
o Engineering Development Reviews
500 Engineering permits and 1600 Engineering inspections were issued and performed
$192,363 collected in traffic impact fees
Permits were issued and engineering is inspecting the following large development
projects: Edmonds Post Office, Fifth Ave Vet Clinic, Jacobsen’s Marine, Community
Health Center, Swedish Hospital, Prestige Skilled Nursing Facility, Shoreshire Plat, Shaw
Lane Plat and 7 short plats
Permits were issued for 40 single family residential projects
Permits were issued for approximately 150 additions/remodels & miscellaneous projects
o Capital Improvement Projects
Five Corners Roundabout
2014 Pavement Preservation Program
5.6 Paved Lane Miles
2.3 Chip Seal Lane Miles
Right of Way Certified for 228th Corridor Project
Packet Page 27 of 468
15th St. Walkway Improvements
3rd Ave ADA Ramps
o Controls system upgrade at Public Safety and the ESCO III project.
o Completion of the FAC Locker Room ADA Upgrades.
o Qualification of City Hall for ENERGY STAR label for fourth consecutive year.
o Remodel of office areas in Building and Planning to accommodate staffing.
o Worked with Police to research and select the next generation of police patrol vehicle
• Challenges/Opportunities 2015
o Develop specifications, set up, and replace the Water/Sewer Vactor truck $410,000 (est.)
o Continue to maintain level of service on development reviews and inspections while updating
the development code and standard details. Engineering review staff will also begin
implementation of electronic data storage, electronic plan reviews and online permit
submittals.
o 228th Corridor Improvement Project
o 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan Update
o Deliver $17.8M in capital improvements
• Stacked bar chart of sewer, storm, water and total and parks total capital program projection
2008- 2016
• Decision Packages
o ESCO IV Project $300,000 ($90,000 grant) Carry-over from 2014 (35)
o Set up Fleet small shop equipment Fund, $15,000/year (44)
o Convert four Ford work trucks to propane use, $30,000 (45)
• Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Engineering,
Facilities,
Fleet,
Administration
5,307,983 4,972,999 5,694,880
Councilmember Bloom inquired about Decision Package #46, $3,490 for Harley Davidson police
technical training page (158 of the budget). Mr. Williams explained this is to send the Senior Fleet
Mechanic to the Harley Davison School for police motorcycles. Mechanic have to be certified to repair a
police Harley Davidson.
Councilmember Bloom referred to decision packages in water and storm for variable message boards. Mr.
Williams these message boards are used to inform drivers of street closures, detour routes, etc., similar to
the signs used at 212th and Main Street during the roundabout project. They are expensive to rent; the
number of upcoming capital projects warrants purchase. The cost will be split between water, sewer and
storm.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about a decision package for standard detail update. Mr. Williams
explained that is to update the standard engineering detail the City maintains that development must
conform to. The cost will be split between water, sewer, storm, and streets. A consultant will be hired to
assist staff.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about a decision package for asset management program updates. Mr.
Williams answered that is a new module for the maintenance and asset management software that will
improve data input and sorting as well as mobile optimization.
14. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS
Packet Page 28 of 468
This item will be rescheduled.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reminded Election Day is a week from today; next week’s meeting will be held on
Monday, November 3.
Mayor Earling relayed the wife of Hekinan’s Mayor passed away. The City has sent a condolence letter
and flowers.
Mayor Earling reminded of the Friday Trick or Treat extravagancy downtown on Friday.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Buckshnis thanked everyone for persevering through a long evening. She remarked the
roundabout was beautiful.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Student Representative Eslami for staying for the entire meeting. She
wished everyone a Happy Halloween.
Councilmember Mesaros commented it was nice to be back from vacation; it was good go away and good
to return, especially to a nice place like Edmonds.
Student Representative Eslami announced the Cross Country meet on Saturday at South Whidbey where
they will be trying to qualify for State.
17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
Packet Page 29 of 468
AM-7254 6. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
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 #211231 through #211336 dated October 30, 2014 for $338,869.68 (reissued
check #211317 $240.00)
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2014
Revenue:
Expenditure:338,869.68
Fiscal Impact:
Claim checks $338,869.68
(reissued check #211317 $240.00)
Attachments
Claim cks 10-30-14
Project Numbers 10-30-14
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/30/2014 09:04 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/30/2014 10:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/30/2014 11:26 AM
Packet Page 30 of 468
Mayor Dave Earling 10/30/2014 11:26 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/30/2014 11:28 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/30/2014 08:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/30/2014
Packet Page 31 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211231 10/30/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 336471 PEST CONTROL PARK MAINT & SENIOR CENTER
PEST CONTROL PARK MAINT & SENIOR CENTER
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 114.98
Total :114.98
211232 10/30/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41481659 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING
Temporary help week ending 10/10/14 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00
TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING41503963
Temporary help week ending 10/17/14 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00
Total :3,480.00
211233 10/30/2014 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND NOV 2014 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/14 EDMONDS A/C
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/2014
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,127.08
Total :2,127.08
211234 10/30/2014 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 1115 WWTP-OCTOBER JANITORIAL
October Janitorial
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00
Total :334.00
211235 10/30/2014 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ZD58 WWTP - MONTHLY NPDES
monthly NPDES testing
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00
Total :165.00
211236 10/30/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987683410 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS
wwtp uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 66.96
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
1Page:
Packet Page 32 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211236 10/30/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.36
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987683411
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74
Total :115.22
211237 10/30/2014 065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC 87075 WWTP - 4 BATTTERY PACKS
panasonic 4 battery pack
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 840.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 36.55
Total :876.55
211238 10/30/2014 073598 AUBURN MECHANICAL, INC 18155 YOST POOL REPAIR
YOST POOL REPAIR, REMOVE AND REPLACE
125.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,290.42
Total :1,290.42
211239 10/30/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 77238 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.67
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.67
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 93.42
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 330.92
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 330.91
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.61
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.61
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 33 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211239 10/30/2014 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.88
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS77379
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 124.88
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 124.88
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 128.65
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 456.07
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 456.06
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.86
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.86
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.23
Total :2,289.18
211240 10/30/2014 074031 BARTH, RUTH 19247 NO FEAR WATER 19247 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR INSTRUCTOR FEE
19247 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 294.80
19251 NO FEAR DRAWING INSTRUCTOR FEE19251 NO FEAR DRAW
19251 NO FEAR DRAWING INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 221.10
Total :515.90
211241 10/30/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0793908-IN Fleet Auto Propane 386.6 Gal
Fleet Auto Propane 386.6 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 722.16
Fleet Auto Propane 274.6 Gal0794642-IN
Fleet Auto Propane 274.6 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 485.48
3Page:
Packet Page 34 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,207.6421124110/30/2014 074307 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
211242 10/30/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 99037 INV#99037 - EDMONDS PD - INVENTORY
BELT KEEPERS/BW/HIDDEN SNAP
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 44.85
RADIO HOLDER/BW/UNIVERSAL
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 8.54
Total :98.39
211243 10/30/2014 067391 BRAT WEAR 12807 INV#12807 - EDMONDS PD
ALPHA BALLISTIC VEST - JONES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 896.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 85.12
Total :981.12
211244 10/30/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14258318 P&R IRC5051 COPIER CHARGES
P&R IRC5051 COPIER CHARGES
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74
Equipment Contract Charge14258320
Equipment Contract Charge
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
contract charges14258321
contract charges
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
P&R PRINTER CHARGE IRC1030IF CONTRACT14258322
P&R PRINTER CHARGE IRC1030IF CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65
FLEET COPIER14264017
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 COPIER14264018
4Page:
Packet Page 35 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211244 10/30/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
PW Office Copier for
001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55
PW Office Copier for
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for
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
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59
WATER SEWER COPIER14264019
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 IRC1030IF14264020
5Page:
Packet Page 36 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211244 10/30/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
PARKS MAINT IRC1030IF
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16
WWTP - COPIER CHARGES14279001
wwtp - copier rental
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80
Total :939.82
211245 10/30/2014 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 34 COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR/CONSULTANT OCTOBE
Communications advisor/consultant
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
211246 10/30/2014 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-057929 INV#010-057929 - EDMONDS PD
EVIDENCE TEST #13-4142
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 245.00
Total :245.00
211247 10/30/2014 067446 CEM CORPORATION 492389 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB
wwtp - drying pads
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 752.40
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 36.08
9.0% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 71.48
Total :859.96
211248 10/30/2014 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 42587869 INV#42587869 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 230.90
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 2.31
Total :233.21
211249 10/30/2014 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E3DC.ROW E3DC.ROW ENG20140523
E3DC.ROW ENG20140523
6Page:
Packet Page 37 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211249 10/30/2014 (Continued)069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 115.00
E4JB.ROW ENG20140531E4JB.ROW
E4JB.ROW ENG20140531
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 115.00
Total :230.00
211250 10/30/2014 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I14002509 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 583.20
Total :583.20
211251 10/30/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11060 E1JB.CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER #12
E1JB.Construction Change Order #12
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 42,322.00
INV#11070 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD11070
PRISONER R&B JULY 2014
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,183.33
Total :43,505.33
211252 10/30/2014 074680 COMBINED CONSTRUCTION INC E1FD.Pmt 1 E1FD.PMT 1 THRU 10/17/14
E1FD.Pmt 1 thru 10/17/14
422.000.72.594.31.65.20 27,265.50
E1FD.Ret 1
422.000.223.400 -13,632.75
Total :13,632.75
211253 10/30/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3293381 Code Updates
Code Updates
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 75.60
Total :75.60
211254 10/30/2014 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 372252 INV#372252 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE #GHD-03881
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
CALIBRATE #LP03397
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
7Page:
Packet Page 38 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211254 10/30/2014 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03
CALIBRATE #PL22583
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
CALIBRATE #XE01579
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
CALIBRATE #GVPD05654
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
CALIBRATE #GVPD08496
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
FUEL SURCHARGE
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 41.80
Total :481.80
211255 10/30/2014 070864 DEX MEDIA 440011987565 C/A 440001304654
Basic e-commerce hosting 10/02/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440011987574
Oct/2014 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
Total :69.90
211256 10/30/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3490 MINUTE TAKING
Council MInutes 10/21
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 372.90
Total :372.90
211257 10/30/2014 061580 ECKSTROM INDUSTRIES 00052831 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
heat exchanger to assembly
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 3,160.00
9.2% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 290.72
Total :3,450.72
211258 10/30/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 140910 Hydrant Deposit Refund
8Page:
Packet Page 39 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211258 10/30/2014 (Continued)007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Hydrant Deposit Refund
421.000.245.110 650.00
Total :650.00
211259 10/30/2014 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19078 WOUBNEH 19078 WOUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
19078 WOUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 60.00
Total :60.00
211260 10/30/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 7
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / METER1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 91-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-03950
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 515.81
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-05350
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 77.46
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 92371-05705
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 9237
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 70.53
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 690138971-13975
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 69013897
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 537.77
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 24351-14000
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 2435
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 149.37
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST /2-25150
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST
9Page:
Packet Page 40 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211260 10/30/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 46.57
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.43
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 73.51
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.38
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63
18200 OLYMPIC VIEW DR / METER 87942-37180
18200 OLYMPIC VIEW DR / METER 8794
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.92
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65
Total :1,818.94
211261 10/30/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 103659 FLEET COPY USE
Fleet Copy Use
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.86
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.65
WATER SEWER COPY USE103662
Water Sewer Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.14
Water Sewer Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 20.14
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.92
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.91
10Page:
Packet Page 41 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211261 10/30/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
PW COPY USE103663
PW Copy Use
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.20
PW Copy Use
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.81
PW Copy Use
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.81
PW Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.28
PW Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.28
PW Copy Use
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0.30
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.17
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.17
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.12
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.13
METER READING106108
9/21 to 10/21 Meter Reading
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 2.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 0.21
Total :65.69
211262 10/30/2014 074098 ERGOSYNCH LLC EDM2101-03 WWTP-ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Task Order 9.14(2) Hach WIMS
11Page:
Packet Page 42 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211262 10/30/2014 (Continued)074098 ERGOSYNCH LLC
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 750.00
Task Order 9.14(3) Hypo Programming
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,910.00
Total :3,660.00
211263 10/30/2014 065789 ESTES, KEN 10/27/2014 LEOFF 1 medical reimbursement
LEOFF 1 medical reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,025.08
Total :1,025.08
211264 10/30/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH595075 Legal Discription - Yates PLN 2014.0043
Legal Discription - Yates PLN 2014.0043
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 61.92
Legal Description - STF2014.0002 CityEDH595468
Legal Description - STF2014.0002 City
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 49.88
NEWSPAPER ADEDH596129
CIP 2015-2020
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 61.92
Total :173.72
211265 10/30/2014 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 70390 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
S.S. Flat Bar, 1/8" X 1-1/4" - 12' (X2)
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 77.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.32
Total :84.32
211266 10/30/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33714 Fleet Shop - Head Gear
Fleet Shop - Head Gear
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 57.21
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.43
Total :62.64
211267 10/30/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0438396 Water - Yard Hydrant Parts installed
12Page:
Packet Page 43 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211267 10/30/2014 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Water - Yard Hydrant Parts installed
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 166.70
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.84
Total :182.54
211268 10/30/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 3129352 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.54
Total :63.89
211269 10/30/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 64.75
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
13Page:
Packet Page 44 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211269 10/30/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 59.19
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02
Total :1,044.25
211270 10/30/2014 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0004572 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING
pump tubing
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 189.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 20.75
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 29.39
Total :239.14
211271 10/30/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9567899779 FAC MAINT - SAFETY GLASSES SUPPLY
FAC MAINT - SAFETY GLASSES SUPPLY
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.62
Total :41.82
211272 10/30/2014 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 153055/1 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
1" combo air valve
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 488.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 46.36
14Page:
Packet Page 45 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :534.3621127210/30/2014 069733 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
211273 10/30/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 9076070 Water Quality - Buffer Solution for
Water Quality - Buffer Solution for
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 613.80
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 62.24
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.37
Total :717.41
211274 10/30/2014 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00182152.B WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, OPERATIONS
8.14 Emergency Process Control
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,375.69
Total :2,375.69
211275 10/30/2014 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 10/27/14 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 268.39
Total :268.39
211276 10/30/2014 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE-2014-1101 OCTOBER 2014 MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS CO
Marketing/Communications consultant
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 4,525.00
Total :4,525.00
211277 10/30/2014 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 19260 UKELELE 19260 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE
19260 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 350.90
Total :350.90
211278 10/30/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 4033521 0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES: AMES RAKES, AA,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 75.62
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES4582983
MAINT SUPPLIES: SAFETY HASPS, UNVHINGES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.05
15Page:
Packet Page 46 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211278 10/30/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES5044260
CEMETERY MAINT SUPPLIES: D 9", MILW
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 391.88
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES5044261
MAINT SUPPLIES: 1/2" DRIVE 18 MM 12PT,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.69
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES5044262
MAINT SUPPLIES: ANGLE BROOM, RZB MFORK,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 144.16
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES584587
14 WATT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.88
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES7031916
MAINT SUPPLIES: GLOVES, STOP&WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.96
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8045007
MAINT SUPPLIES: DOOR PULLS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.00
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8563890
MAINT SUPPLIES: EXT PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.91
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8592767
MAINT SUPPLIES: GOOFOFF, DUST PANS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.30
Total :871.45
211279 10/30/2014 075069 HOUSEWARES BID 10242014 REIMBURSEMENT FOR 15 UMBRELLA CONTAINERS
Reimbursement for purchase of 15
627.000.61.558.70.31.00 656.84
Total :656.84
211280 10/30/2014 070742 HURLEY, DAN WOTS HURLEY ADDITION WOTS HURLEY ADDITIONAL
WOTS HURLEY ADDITIONAL
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 60.00
16Page:
Packet Page 47 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :60.0021128010/30/2014 070742 070742 HURLEY, DAN
211281 10/30/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2530150 Office supplies Dev. Serv. Dept.
Office supplies Dev. Serv. Dept.
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 143.82
CLEAR PACKING TAPE, RUBBER BANDS2530500
Scotch Packing Tape, Rubber bands
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 30.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.88
Total :176.97
211282 10/30/2014 067074 JAMES, SCOTT Sept 2014 WFOA CONFERENCE 9/17 - 9/19/14
Expense reimbursement at WFOA
001.000.31.514.20.43.00 611.91
Total :611.91
211283 10/30/2014 074936 KDH CONSULTING INC 16486 Consultant time attempted e-mail
Consultant time attempted e-mail
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 300.00
Total :300.00
211284 10/30/2014 074240 KNIGHT, KAREN 19073 FUN FACTORY 19073 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE
19073 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 596.70
19075 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE19075 FUN FACTORY
19075 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 655.87
Total :1,252.57
211285 10/30/2014 067568 KPG INC 98814 E3DC.SERVICES THRU 9/25/14
E3DC.Services thru 9/25/14
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,901.32
Total :3,901.32
211286 10/30/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 33982 E1GA.TO 14-05 SERVICES THRU 9/27/14
E1GA.TO 14-05 Services thru 9/27/14
17Page:
Packet Page 48 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211286 10/30/2014 (Continued)017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 991.75
Total :991.75
211287 10/30/2014 074749 LARSON, KELLIE 19077 ART START MINI 19077 ART START MINI INSTRUCTOR FEE
19077 ART START MINI INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 180.00
19079 ART START INSTRUCTOR FEE19079 ART START
19079 ART START INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 204.00
Total :384.00
211288 10/30/2014 074014 LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC 3398085 E4FA.SERVICES THRU 8/29/14
E4FA.Services thru 8/29/14
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 4,059.84
Total :4,059.84
211289 10/30/2014 065791 LEIRA NOV 6 - BROMAN NOV 6 2014 TRAINING - MINDY BROMAN - EDM
11/6/14 TRAINING - BROMAN
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 85.00
Total :85.00
211290 10/30/2014 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 139125 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES
exhaust fan troubleshoot and repair
423.000.76.535.80.48.23 774.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.23 73.58
Total :848.08
211291 10/30/2014 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 19123 LEARN TO ICE S 19123 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE
19123 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 416.50
19125 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE19125 LEARN TO ICE
19125 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 297.50
Total :714.00
18Page:
Packet Page 49 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211292 10/30/2014 061900 MARC 0536250-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING
detergent and delimer
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 35.63
Total :410.63
211293 10/30/2014 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC 140906 Hydrant Permit Deposit Refund
Hydrant Permit Deposit Refund
421.000.245.110 950.00
Total :950.00
211294 10/30/2014 019940 MC COMAS, GARY 10/24/14 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 566.73
Total :566.73
211295 10/30/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 14993934 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITY
recycling and trash receptacles
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 297.06
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 37.56
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL15032200
hardware and blades
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1,446.81
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 101.70
WWTP - REPAIR, FACILITIES15514648
kickplates
423.000.76.535.80.48.23 215.70
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.23 17.23
Total :2,116.06
211296 10/30/2014 074491 MERIDIAN GEOGRAPHICS LLC PAYMENT # 2 PAYMENT # 2 EDMONDS STREET SCRAMBLE
PAYMENT # 2 EDMONDS STREET SCRAMBLE
19Page:
Packet Page 50 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211296 10/30/2014 (Continued)074491 MERIDIAN GEOGRAPHICS LLC
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,160.00
Total :1,160.00
211297 10/30/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 198670 Water Sewer - 2 Cyc Oil
Water Sewer - 2 Cyc Oil
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 25.43
Water Sewer - 2 Cyc Oil
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 25.42
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.42
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.41
Total :55.68
211298 10/30/2014 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-2 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/14
E4GA.Services thru 9/30/14
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 38,321.07
Total :38,321.07
211299 10/30/2014 075070 ND NEVADA LLC 1-28530 #611080378-SK UTILITY REFUND
#611080378-SK Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 80.09
Total :80.09
211300 10/30/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1048063 SCOUT PROJECT HONEY BUCKET
SCOUT PROJECT HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 175.65
Total :175.65
211301 10/30/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 519 Planning Board Minute taker 10/22/14
Planning Board Minute taker 10/22/14
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 297.00
Total :297.00
211302 10/30/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 021484 Water - Batteries
Water - Batteries
20Page:
Packet Page 51 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211302 10/30/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 50.37
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.78
OFFICE SUPPLIES035200
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 117.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 11.14
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Personal037206
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Personal
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 25.10
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Personal
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 25.10
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Personal
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 25.10
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Personal
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 25.10
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.39
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.39
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.39
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.37
Water - Blue Timesheet Paper696851
Water - Blue Timesheet Paper
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 90.60
PW Copy Paper
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 255.90
PW Copy Paper
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 51.18
PW Copy Paper
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 51.18
21Page:
Packet Page 52 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211302 10/30/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW Copy Paper
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 51.18
PW Copy Paper
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 51.18
PW Copy Paper
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 51.18
Sewer Timesheet Paper
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 90.60
PW 11x17 Copy Paper
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 18.66
PW 11x17 Copy Paper
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 18.66
PW 11x17 Copy Paper
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 18.66
PW 11x17 Copy Paper
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.66
PW 11x17 Copy Paper
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.66
Storm Timesheet Paper
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 53.80
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 26.08
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 11.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 6.64
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.86
OFFICE SUPPLIES840260
Office Supplies
22Page:
Packet Page 53 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211302 10/30/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 0.85
PW Office Supplies877521
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 78.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 7.41
PW Office Supplies905080
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 48.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.60
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders960892
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 50.48
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.79
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders960959
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 50.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.79
Water - Magnifiers974862
Water - Magnifiers
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.60
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.77
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders976348
PW Office Supplies - Hanging Folders
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.85
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.98
Total :1,538.19
23Page:
Packet Page 54 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211303 10/30/2014 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 138392 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS
wilson clay
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 2,450.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 232.75
Total :2,682.75
211304 10/30/2014 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6398803-00 Unit 304 - Repairs
Unit 304 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 387.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 36.82
Total :424.34
211305 10/30/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-82053 WWTP-PLC & SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE
phase 02, task 01-PLC-101, 501
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 38,967.97
Total :38,967.97
211306 10/30/2014 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 105258 INV#105258 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1999 HONDA #AOC7775
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 237.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 22.52
Total :259.52
211307 10/30/2014 008475 PETTY CASH 09/22-10/28/14 FAC - PARTS
FAC - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.03
FAC MAINT - MILEAGE FOR SUPPLIES PICKUP
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 7.56
WATER - BACKFLOW TESTING FEES - L MC
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 145.00
WATER - BACKFLOW TESTING FEES - J WAITE
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 145.00
STORM CDL PHYSICAL
24Page:
Packet Page 55 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211307 10/30/2014 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 99.00
Total :414.59
211308 10/30/2014 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 10222014 POSTAGE FOR POSTAGE METER
Postage for City Meter250-00324
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
211309 10/30/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F302857 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
mounted junc. boxes
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 222.05
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 21.09
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF311168
vaporproof cover
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 15.09
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1.43
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF311169
ABB relays
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 33.46
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 3.18
Grandstands - SuppliesF313421
Grandstands - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.00
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF317447
conduit, couplings and connections
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 771.57
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 73.30
Grandstands - SuppliesF321746
Grandstands - Supplies
25Page:
Packet Page 56 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211309 10/30/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.59
WWTP-REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF321795
Relay, general purpose
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 33.46
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 3.18
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF324238
conduit
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 252.99
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 24.03
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCEF335059
conduit
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 494.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 46.98
Museum - PartsF339293
Museum - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 93.14
Fac Maint - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.93
Sewer LS - PartsF353916
Sewer LS - Parts
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.25
WWTP-REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF355193
cut-in box and pigtails
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 17.29
9.5% Sales Tax
26Page:
Packet Page 57 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211309 10/30/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1.64
WWTP-REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF361729
power strut, Stainless 100
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 828.07
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 78.67
CH Finance - SuppliesF378042
CH Finance - Supplies
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 101.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.63
CH Finance - SuppliesF381784
CH Finance - Supplies
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 29.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 2.77
WWTP-REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF383221
stranded copper wire
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 167.07
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 15.87
City Hall Finance - SuppliesF383264
City Hall Finance - Supplies
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 183.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 17.43
Total :3,699.64
211310 10/30/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 213356 WWTP - POSTAGE
dept. of L&I, safety videos
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 28.80
Total :28.80
211311 10/30/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
27Page:
Packet Page 58 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211311 10/30/2014 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 59.16
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 59.15
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE STATION #16
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.53
Total :236.84
211312 10/30/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 658.88
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 151.92
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 76.40
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 160.99
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 63.13
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 113.15
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 249.38
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 66.83
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 73.26
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354
28Page:
Packet Page 59 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211312 10/30/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.12
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 5.55
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 21.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 21.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 21.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 21.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 21.10
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 319.97
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.12
Total :2,187.20
211313 10/30/2014 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 93894 INV#93894 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1996 TOYOTA CAMRY #ADZ3341
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 237.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 22.52
Total :259.52
211314 10/30/2014 065966 RAR COMMUNICATIONS INC NOV 14 2014 EDMONDS PD - MARSH - 11/14/14 CLASS SNOQ
PUBLIC SAFETY/PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 135.00
Total :135.00
29Page:
Packet Page 60 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211315 10/30/2014 074509 RENCH, CHRIS 00247 RENCH 5 CORNERS ART AND INSTALLATION
RENCH 5 CORNERS ART AND INSTALLATION
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 20,000.00
Total :20,000.00
211316 10/30/2014 075067 RESCUE PHONE INC 14-4812Q INV#14-4812Q - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)
RESCUE PHONE QUAD CONSOLE
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 4,495.00
Total :4,495.00
211317 10/30/2014 074602 RICH, KENNETH WOTS RICH WOTS RICH
WOTS RICH
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 240.00
Total :240.00
211318 10/30/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5032979003 DSD Additional images Ricoh MP 171SPF
DSD Additional images Ricoh MP 171SPF
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 9.48
Total :9.48
211319 10/30/2014 067569 SHAWGUIDES INC 12308 WOTS SHAW GUIDES
WOTS SHAW GUIDES
123.000.64.573.20.44.00 500.00
Total :500.00
211320 10/30/2014 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 10/21/2014 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 84.11
Total :84.11
211321 10/30/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 75.68
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6
30Page:
Packet Page 61 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211321 10/30/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,375.28
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 194.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.69
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 111.08
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 83.10
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /
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 1,522.74
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 47.02
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 52.66
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 103.02
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 53.59
31Page:
Packet Page 62 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211321 10/30/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 72.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 274.88
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 274.88
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 274.88
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 274.88
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 274.90
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE2020-7719-4
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 893.72
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 193.84
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 112.84
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,440.54
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 32.94
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 231.92
32Page:
Packet Page 63 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :11,139.0721132110/30/2014 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
211322 10/30/2014 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 838521 E1FH.SERVICES THRU 9/26/14
E1FH.Services thru 9/26/14
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 6,378.75
Total :6,378.75
211323 10/30/2014 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1197 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES OCTOBER 2014
Social media services October 2014
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 400.00
Total :400.00
211324 10/30/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18055970 LS 7 - Steel Wedge Anchors
LS 7 - Steel Wedge Anchors
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.32
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.79
Total :9.11
211325 10/30/2014 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 10/21 SOFTBALL FIELD 10/3, 10/7- 10/21 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTTEND
10/3, 10/7- 10/21 SOFTBALL FIELD
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 320.00
Total :320.00
211326 10/30/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50848169 E3FC.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 2014
E3FC.Services thru September 2014
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 36,816.51
WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE50849137
Task Order 5.14
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 479.04
Total :37,295.55
211327 10/30/2014 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10015985 1 Yr Subscription -PW Admin
1 Yr Subscription -PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.49.00 195.00
Total :195.00
33Page:
Packet Page 64 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211328 10/30/2014 062693 US BANK 3405 GUARDIAN SECURITY - OLD PW
GUARDIAN SECURITY - OLD PW
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
FEDEX OFFICE - RECYCLE - RECYCLE SIGNS3546
FEDEX OFFICE - RECYCLE - RECYCLE SIGNS
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 131.40
WSRA - RECYCLE SEMINAR - S FISHER
421.000.74.537.90.43.00 65.00
CCC BACKFLOW SEMINAR -WATER/SEWER - J
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 321.00
CCC BACKFLOW SEMINAR -WATER/SEWER - J
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 214.00
WORKSAFE - SEWER DRUG TEST (1)
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 52.00
CCC BACKFLOW SEMINAR - WATER - S
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 115.00
WA DOL - UNIT 947 LIC FEES7299
WA DOL - UNIT 947 LIC FEES
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 2.00
WA DOL - UNIT 947 - TABS
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 47.55
WESCO - UNIT EQ93PO - SUPPLIES
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 43.57
AMAZON - FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 99.89
PROCLIP - UNIT 455 - CHARGING HOLDERS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 307.12
AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING GROUP - TRANS IN
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 199.00
CREST CHEV - FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 98.66
LA POLICE GEAR - UNIT 106 - STREAMLIGHT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 102.99
Total :1,854.18
34Page:
Packet Page 65 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211329 10/30/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9733660265 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 72.99
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 179.32
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.35
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.33
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 58.28
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 363.82
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.66
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 92.56
Cell Service-PW Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 29.44
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 45.88
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 45.87
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 89.49
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 97.78
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 51.58
Total :1,451.35
211330 10/30/2014 075071 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES 3-41725 #500015854-KD UTILITY REFUND
#500015854-KD Utility refund - received
411.000.233.000 181.20
Total :181.20
35Page:
Packet Page 66 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211331 10/30/2014 047960 WEAN, GREG 10/21/14 LEOFF 1 medical reimbursement
LEOFF 1 medical reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 80.00
Total :80.00
211332 10/30/2014 075068 WEDA 6631 2015 MEMBERSHIP IN WA ECONOMIC DEVELOPME
2015 Membership in Washington Economic
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 400.00
Total :400.00
211333 10/30/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6482 BUSINESS CARDS FOR ECONOM DEVELOPMENT
Business Cards-Carolyn Douglas250-00323
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 4.28
Total :49.28
211334 10/30/2014 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 1897W-03 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 10/5/14
E1AA.Services thru 10/5/14
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 35,677.20
Total :35,677.20
211335 10/30/2014 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 10/27/2014 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 429.95
Total :429.95
211336 10/30/2014 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 228 UMPIRE FOR ADULT SOFTBALL GAMES IN OCTOB
UMPIRE FOR ADULT SOFTBALL GAMES IN
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 1,320.00
Total :1,320.00
Bank total :339,109.68106 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
339,109.68Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report106
36Page:
Packet Page 67 of 468
10/30/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
8:01:42AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
37Page:
Packet Page 68 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 69 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 70 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 71 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 72 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 73 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 74 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 75 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 76 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 77 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 78 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 79 of 468
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 10/30/2014 Packet Page 80 of 468
AM-7245 6. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of Katie Bojakowski to Position #2 - Professional of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Recommendation
Mayor Earling recommends Katie Bojakowski's confirmation to the Historic Preservation Commission
for Position #2 - Professional.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling believes Ms. Bojakowski will be an invaluable addition to the Historic Preservation
Commission. Ms. Bojakowski holds a BA in Anthropology and a Doctorate & Masters in Nautical
Archaeology. Position #2 is one of two Professional positions on the Historic Preservation Commission.
HPC terms are for 3-years
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/28/2014 06:12 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 05:33 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/29/2014 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/27/2014 10:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2014
Packet Page 81 of 468
AM-7243 6. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of Eric Livingston to Position #10 of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Recommendation
Mayor Earling recommends Eric Livingston's confirmation to the Historic Preservation Commission for
Position #10.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling feels Mr. Livingston will be an asset to the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr.
Livingston holds degrees in Art and Technical Writing. He will fill Position #10 which will expire on
12/31/15.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/28/2014 06:12 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 05:34 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/29/2014 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/27/2014 09:33 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2014
Packet Page 82 of 468
AM-7260 6. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Adoption of ordinance designating the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main Street,
Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing
the Development Services Director or her designee to designate the site on the official zoning
map with an “HR” designation. (File No. PLN20140037).
Recommendation
Adopt ordinance included as Exhibit 1.
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a public hearing on October 28, 2014 and moved the ordinance to the
consent agenda for the November 3, 2014 Council meeting.
Narrative
The current owners of the Schumacher Building, located at 316Main Street (site of Chanterelle
Restaurant), have nominated the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
and signed the property owners' written consent for listing the property (Exhibit 2). The Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Schumacher Building on
the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on September 11, 2014 and concluded that the site is
eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 4).
The Schumacher Building as constructed by William A. Schumacher who was the city treasurer
that founded the Bank of Edmonds. Schumacher also constructed the Bank of Edmonds building
at 326 Main Street which also is on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
The building is an example of Western False Front building. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth-century, false front commercial buildings were typically wood frame, one to two
stories in height with a rectangular floor plan and a front gabbled roof.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance
Packet Page 83 of 468
Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form
Exhibit 3 - Historic Preservation Staff Report
Exhibit 4 - September 11, 2014 HPC Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 5 - Edmonds Patch article on William Schumacher
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2014 08:56 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2014 09:10 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:14 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 10/31/2014 08:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 84 of 468
- 1 -
kpl
2014/10/23
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE
SCHUMACHER BUILDING LOCATED AT 316 MAIN
STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON
THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND
DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION.,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the building known as the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main
Street, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds
prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible
for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public
hearing on September 11, 2014, to consider the eligibility of the Schumacher Building for listing
on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the Schumacher Building be listed on
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation;
and
Packet Page 85 of 468
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation
and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of
the ECDC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 28, 2014, to
consider the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The building located at 316 Main Street Edmonds, Washington
98020, known as the Schumacher Builder, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds
Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant.
Section 2. The Development Services Director, or her designee, is hereby
authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation.
This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification.
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:
Packet Page 86 of 468
- 3 -
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 87 of 468
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 3rd day of November, 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 DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE SCHUMACHER BUILDING
LOCATED AT 316 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON
THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., 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 November, 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 88 of 468
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
9
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
0
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
1
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
2
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
3
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
4
o
f
4
6
8
Meeting Date: September 11, 2014
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Schumacher Building at 316 Main Street as
eligible for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Property Information
Site Name/Location: Schumacher Building (Chanterelle Restaurant)
316 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Account #: 00434401600503
Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec
Construction date: 1900
Owner/Applicant Information
Person(s) Nominating Site: Dena Blatt and Gerry Tays
Property Owner: Dena Blatt
Report Summary
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the
Schumacher Building meets the criteria for designation on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the
structure contains the significant architectural features.
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
Packet Page 95 of 468
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
1. Significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or cultural heritage of
Edmonds…
This commercial building is associated
with the early commercial development of
Edmonds.
2. Has integrity… The BOLA report notes that the building
is a largely intact example of Western
False Front storefront building. A photo
that appears to be from the 1970’s show a
different false front from the historic
period of significance and what current
exists. A review of the permit system
indicates that the building was restored in
1999 or 2000. The restoration appears to
have been consistent with the Department
of the Interior’s guidelines for restoration
and the building as it appears today
matches the appearance of the building
during its period of significance.
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
exceptional importance if less than 50
years old…
The building was constructed in 1900 and
thus is 114 years old.
4. Falls into at least one of the following
designation categories:
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of national, state or
local history.
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 Schumacher Building is an example
of Western False Front building. In the
late nineteenth and early twentieth-
century, false front commercial buildings
were typically wood frame, one to two
stories in height with a rectangular floor
plan and a front gabbled roof.
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
Packet Page 96 of 468
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
d. Exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City’s cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history.
The Schumacher Building is associated
with the early commercial development of
Edmonds. This building was the home of
Heberein’s Hardware Store for years and
in the 1940’s its occupant was the
Furniture Exchange.
e. Is 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
that founded the Bank of Edmonds.
Schumacher also constructed the Bank of
Edmonds building at 326 Main Street
which also is on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
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.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance and
is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of
folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions,
and which does not fit into formal
architectural or historical, the
designation shall include description
of the boundaries of categories.
Packet Page 97 of 468
Significant Features
1. Shape: The building is a two-story rectangular building with a false front making
the building appear taller on the front than on the exposed south side.
2. Roof and Roof
Features:
A front gabled roof is hidden behind the false front.
3. Openings
(entries, etc.):
At the first floor, the north primary facade contains glazed storefront with a
recessed entry with double doors, wood framed windows and band of
transom windows. At the second floor there are five evenly spaced double-
hung windows, notable for their vertical proportions and simple two over
two subdivision. The secondary west facade is similar, but features non-
original windows and coated aluminum display windows set within painted
wood sash. A central recessed entrance accesses two separate retail spaces
and upper floor offices. Entry doors to the second floor are located at the
northeast and southwest corners. The west facade features single and pairs
of double-hung wood windows on the first floor and five, evenly spaced
paired double- hung windows at the second floor, each with planter boxes
4. Projections: N/A
5. Trim & secondary
features
Above the band of transom windows there is a continuous projecting
classical detailed trim, supported by small brackets, that acts as an
intermediate cornice band between the first and second floors. A similar
trim lines the top of the false front.
6. Materials: The building has V-grooved siding that extends nearly to grade with
screened openings exposing the crawl space.
7. Setting: The building is located on a block with, and connected to, structures of a
similar age. The building directly to the east was the site of the Kingdon’s
General Store and was constructed in 1910. Just east of Kingdon’s General
Store is the Bank of Edmonds which was constructed in 1907 and is
currently on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. William A.
Schumacher constructed the building as well as the Bank of Edmonds
building. Further to the east across 4th Ave is the Beeson Building, which
was constructed in 1909. All these buildings maintain much of their historic
character and add greatly to the ambiance of downtown Edmonds.
8. Materials at close
range
N/A
9. Craft details: N/A
10. Individual
rooms/spaces:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
11. Related spaces or
sequences:
N/A
12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
Packet Page 98 of 468
13. Surface finishes &
materials:
N/A
14. Exposed structure: N/A
Schumacher Building, no date identified (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 99 of 468
Schumacher Building circa 1909 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Schumacher Building between 1939 – 1945 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 100 of 468
Schumacher Building in the 1970’s? (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Schumacher Building 2004 (Photo from Bola Report)
Packet Page 101 of 468
Rear of Schumacher Building 2004 (Photo from Bola Report)
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or
cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a
historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and
maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this
rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Page 102 of 468
APPROVED
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014 Page 2
Register of Historic Places, and specifically history of the Schumacher Building. The article could also invite others to place
their properties on the Register and encourage interested citizens to join the Commission.
The Commission discussed that their web page has not been consistently updated when new properties are added to the
Register. Mr. Lien advised that Mr. Chave typically updates the Commission’s web page as directed by the Commission.
The Commission agreed to add, “Updates to the Historic Preservation Commission’s Web Page” as a monthly agenda item.
Preservation Planning Committee
The Preservation Planning Committee did not have any items to report.
South Snohomish County Historical Society
Commissioner Allbery announced that Scarecrow Festival is gearing up, and many people have signed up to participate,
including the Historic Preservation Commission. Winners will be announced at a separate function at the Edmonds Museum
on November 3rd. The Edmonds Museum is also in the process of interviewing candidates for the position of Director. In
addition, the Society is moving forward with plans for the Heritage Days Benefit Dinner on October 24 th, and the main focus
will be funding to remodel the front of the Edmonds Museum. Council Member Petso agreed to make an announcement
about the dinner, including how to donate and/or purchase tickets, at the next City Council meeting.
OTHER REPORTS
There were no other reports scheduled on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearing to Determine the Eligibility of the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main Street for listing on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places (File Number PLN20140037)
Mr. Lien provided a brief history of the building and reviewed how the property meets the designation criteria required to be
considered eligible for the Register:
Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or cultural heritage of Edmonds.
The building is associated with the early commercial development of Edmonds.
Has integrity. The BOLA Report noted that the building is a largely intact example of a Western False Front
building. A photo from the 1970’s shows a different false front from the historic period of significance and what
currently exists. However, a review of the permit system indicates that the building was restored in 1999 or 2000 in
a manner consistent with the Department of the Interior’s guidelines for restoration, and the current building
matches the appearance of the building during its period of significance.
Age at least 50 years old, or has exception importance if less than 50 years old. The building was constructed in
1900, making it 114 years old.
In addition to the three criteria, Mr. Lien advised that the property must be consistent with at least one of the other
designation categories. He suggested that the property is consistent with the following designation categories:
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
Schumacher building is an example of late 19 th and early 20th Century Western False Front Buildings, which were
typically wood frame and one to two stories in height, with a rectangular floor plan and a front gabled roof.
Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or
architectural history. The building is associated with the early commercial development of Edmonds. It was home
to the Heberein’s Hardware Store for years, and was occupied by the Furniture Exchange in the 1940’s.
Packet Page 103 of 468
APPROVED
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014 Page 3
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 proper ty 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 104 of 468
William H. Schumacher, Edmonds
Renaissance Man
William H. Schumacher, a man of diverse talents, many interests, and boundless
energy, was a major player in Edmonds' formative years.
By Larry Vogel (Open Post) (/users/larry-vogel)
Updated August 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Best remembered today for the historic downtown building bearing his name,
William H. Schumacher was a major player in the cast of characters who shaped
the young city of Edmonds in the late 19 and early 20 centuries.
He and his brother, Roy W. Schumacher, first appear in the historic records of
Edmonds as the builders and owners of Edmonds first commercial building. Built
in 1890 on the south side of Main Street between Third and Fourth Avenues, the
Schumacher Building originally housed the Schumacher general store. (see the
th th
Page 1 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 105 of 468
July 2010 Preservationist
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/HPC/HPC_docs/Preservationist_Jul_2010_final.pdf)
from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/hpc.stm)).
His first involvement in the public sector came in 1894. William Schumacher was
particularly adept at finance and accounting, and that year the city council
appointed him Edmonds City Treasurer. He held this position for several years
while continuing to run the general store with his brother. But Edmonds was
growing rapidly, and this created new opportunities for a man of Schumacher's
talents.
By 1904, Edmonds was home to a number of businesses, with more opening
every month. The logging and shingle industries were booming, new mills were
opening, and existing ones were expanding and adding equipment. The town's
population was increasing, home construction was soaring, and payrolls were
growing. All this meant increased financial activity, and the need for a local bank
was clear.
That year, two Seattle lawyers and a Port Angeles businessman joined forces to
open the first bank in Edmonds. They actively recruited participants from the local
community, and City Treasurer Schumacher was high on their short list. He was
approached, and agreed to have his name listed as a director of the new bank,
which opened in December 1904. In order to devote his full energies to this new
position, he and his brother Roy sold their general store in late 1904.
Schumacher was a scrupulous accountant, and it didn’t take long for him to
discover some fatal problems with the new bank’s finances. Specifically, the three
principals had invested no cash in the project, leaving the bank operating as a
shell with no capital backing. Taking matters into his own hands, Schumacher
used the list of contacts he’d developed over a decade as City Treasurer to find
Page 2 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 106 of 468
backers and raise capital. In short order he raised the necessary money, bought
out the original three principals, and set the bank on a solid financial basis with
$12,000 cash capital.
In 1907, the bank moved to its newly constructed quarters on the corner of Fourth
and Main, two doors east of the Schumacher Building, and became the State Bank
of Edmonds. William Schumacher was listed as cashier, and his brother Roy W.
Schumacher as assistant cashier. The Edmonds Bank Building still stands today,
and is listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (see the press release
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/HPC/HPC_docs/BankBuildingPressRel.pdf)).
Restless by nature, William Schumacher was always seeking new horizons. On
October 1, 1908, he plunged into the newspaper business when he purchased the
Edmonds Tribune from T.A.A. Seigfiedt, Edmonds lawyer and real estate
developer. Siegfriedt was the second owner of the Tribune, having bought it the
year before from Will Taylor, who had established it in 1907 (see Patch article ). At
that time, the Tribune was housed at Fourth and Main in a building owned by .
A month after taking over the paper, Schumacher inadvertently set off a firestorm
by publishing a letter from former Tribune owner Siegfriedt. Siegfriedt was a
member of the Edmonds Law and Order League, a group of citizens opposed to
what they saw as corruption and cronyism in Edmonds local government.
Seigfriedt’s letter blasted a “citizen’s committee,” whose membership included
Mayor James Brady, accusing it of being a front for Edmonds political insiders.
The morning after his letter ran, an effigy of Siegfriedt appeared suspended over
Main Street. For several days the “hanging” was the talk of the town, providing
amusement to many and consternation to some. The town marshall allowed it to
remain (allegedly at Mayor Brady’s order), and it was finally cut down by
Seigfriedt’s supporters.
Page 3 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 107 of 468
But the story doesn’t end there. With Siegfriedt’s effigy still twisting in the wind, a
messenger served Tribune publisher William Schumacher with a legal document
from his landlord, Mayor James Brady. Upon reading it, Schumacher was shocked
to learn that the Tribune was being summarily evicted from the building. He was
given three days to move everything out or pay a drastically increased rent. Take-
home lesson in Edmonds Politics 101: Don’t cross Big Jim Brady.
Undaunted, Schumacher obtained a building site across the street adjacent to the
Schumacher Building and enlisted several friends to build a new home for the
Tribune. The press was moved to the back of Heberlein’s Hardware Store (current
tenant of the Schumacher Building), and after a frenzied week of sawing and
hammering, the new building was ready. The Tribune never missed an issue.
Under Schumacher’s leadership, the Tribune merged with the Edmonds Review,
published by , and in 1910 became The Edmonds Tribune-Review. But by then
Schumacher had had enough. After two contentious years at the helm, he leased
the entire operation to George and Alice Boomer.
Never content to sit in one place, in July 1909 he joined Allen Yost and two other
local entrepreneurs to form the Automatic Broom Sprinkler Manufacturing
Company, becoming company secretary. In October 1910, he helped form the
Edmonds Choral Society and became its first president.
After two years of singing in the chorus and using his accounting skills at
Automatic Broom, he was ready once again to stick his toe in the local political
waters. He was elected to the city council in 1912, one of a large group of
freshman council members swept into office by an electorate ready for change.
Mayor Brady’s murder earlier that year had radically altered the local political
landscape, and for the first time voters elected a council dominated by socialists.
Debate on even small issues was often heated and steeped in ideology, and
Schumacher, accustomed to the precise world of accounting and balance sheets,
Page 4 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 108 of 468
had no stomach or inclination for such protracted debate and governmental
process. He resigned that same year and returned to the bank as assistant
cashier.
But within a few months, Schumacher’s restless nature again came to the surface.
He and his brother Roy left Edmonds in 1913 and moved to the newly
incorporated city of Sequim, where William had been offered the position of city
clerk. He was elected mayor of Sequim in 1915, and in 1923 was named Sequim
town treasurer. He died in Sequim on April 17, 1931.
His brother, Roy W. Schumacher, remained in Sequim and stayed active in the
community. He was appointed to fill the term of a deceased city councilmember in
1934. In 1938, he took over his brother’s former role as town treasurer. He was
also appointed police judge in 1944. He served as treasurer until 1949, stepping
down due to ill health. He died shortly thereafter.
The Schumacher brothers were lifetime companions and partners in business and
the affairs of the community. Their lasting legacy in Edmonds, the historic
Schumacher Building, has housed an array of businesses over the years from
hardware stores to restaurants. Today it is home to the landmark , which first
opened in 1986 and has had three separate owners. Since 1997, it's been owned
and operated by the husband-wife team of Randy and Brooke Baker.
Page 5 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 109 of 468
AM-7261 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the 2015 Proposed City Budget.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2015 Budget to City Council during their October 7th City
Council meeting.
On October 21, the following departments presented their 2015 budget requests to Council:
1. City Clerk; 2. Mayor's Office; 3. Human Resources; 4. Economic Development; 5. Finance &
Information Services; 6. Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance); 7. Development Services; and 8,
Parks, and 9. Municipal Court.
On October 28th Council Meeting, the following departments will presented their 2015 budget requests
to Council:
1. Police; 2. Public Works Utilities; 3. Public Works Roads; and 4. Public Works Administration,
Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering.
Subsequent Council Meetings on the Proposed 2015 Budget are scheduled as scheduled as follows:
November 10th 2015 Budget Study Session, and
November 18th 2015 Budget Discussion and Potential Adoption
Tentative December 2nd 2015 Budget Discussion and Potential Adoption.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/31/2014 09:23 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:24 AM
Packet Page 110 of 468
Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2014 09:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:36 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/31/2014 09:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 111 of 468
AM-7256 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan
Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be
prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan as amended by the City Council.
Previous Council Action
On September 23, 2014, Council reviewed the process to approve the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital
Improvement Program.
On October 28, 2014, Council reviewed the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement
Program.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for
at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of
projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's
projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that
preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified
within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which
encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The proposed 2015-2020 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2015-2020 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP
has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's
Packet Page 112 of 468
financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects
between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP.
The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on
September 24, 2014. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City
Council for approval. The draft minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 4.
Attached is the Sunset Walkway cost information for the trial project and project design costs to
date. The City has received $78,527 in reimbursement for design costs from the federal grant through the
second quarter of 2014. The PSRC TAP preliminary cost estimate for the $2,099,000 figure in the
proposed CIP/CFP in 2018 is also attached for reference. The difference between the cost estimate and
the number in the CIP/CFP is an estimate of inflation from the date of estimate to the assumed date of
construction (2018). The TAP estimate did not include costs for design and construction of water and
sewer utilities that may be built, if the project goes forward.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP 2015-2020
Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP 2015-2020
Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison (2014 to 2015)
Exhibit 4 - Draft Planning Board Minutes
Sunset Walkway Trial Project Costs
Sunset Walkway Design Costs
PSRC TAP Estimate
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 10/31/2014 09:08 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 10/31/2014 09:17 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2014 09:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:36 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/30/2014 01:14 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 113 of 468
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2015-2020
DRAFT
Packet Page 114 of 468
Packet Page 115 of 468
CFP
GENERAL
Packet Page 116 of 468
Packet Page 117 of 468
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $5-$23 M
$0 Community
Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships
$0 REET
$0 Total $5 M
$0 Capital Campaign
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $5 M
$0 Public Vote
RCO Land Acquisitio Conceptual $2,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000
$4,000,000 G.O. Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$6,100,000 Total $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 Unknown
$0 Library /
Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total Unknown
$0 Capital Campaign
Unknown Conceptual $1,330,000 REET 2 $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000
$1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000
$5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000
$2,750,000 Grants $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$10,880,000 Total $3,750,000 $40,000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 10-12M
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $3 - $4M
$0 Public Vote / Grants
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0 Private Partnership
$0 Total $4 - 10M
EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured)
US DOT Completed $0 State Funds
$0 Total Unknown
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total $0 $300,000
Total CFP $16,980,000 Annual CFP Totals $6,750,000 $140,000 $6,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $0
PurposeProject Name
Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics
Center (Feasibility study complete
August 2009).
Establish a new center for the Art's
Community.
Edmonds School District
(City has lease until 2021).
Replace / Renovate
(Currently subleased on Civic
Playfield until 2021).
Boys & Girls Club Building
Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development
2021-20252020201920182017
Art Center / Art Museum
20162015Revenue Source
(2015-2020)
Total Cost
Current
Project
Phase
Grant
Opportunity
Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a
public restroom downtown.
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Building
Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional
programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities
Plan).
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a
year round public market.
Community Park / Athletic Complex -
Old Woodway High School
In cooperation with ESD#15 develop
a community park and athletic
complex.
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal
Facility
Relocate ferry terminal to Marina
Beach.
Replace / Renovate deteriorating
building in City Park.
Senior Center Building Replace and expand deteriorating
building on the waterfront.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
4
6
8
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 120 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote
Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts
facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001
and in the 2008 update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 121 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing
and changing needs of this important club.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field
house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or
replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a
modern club.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 122 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.3M
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025
Acquisition $20,000 $3M
Planning/Study 100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3M
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 123 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs
and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan:
2007-2025
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring
additional space and more sophisticated technology.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 124 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community
colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful
regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-
2025
Planning/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000
Engineering &
Administration
175,000 150,000 175,000
Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000
1% for Art 125,000
TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m
-
$12m
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 125 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance & Operations Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 126 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil.
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building
complex on the City waterfront.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The floors
are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility
requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other
sources.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4m -$10m
Packet Page 127 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will
provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting
various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between
existing and planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-
2025
Engineering &
Administration
Right of Way
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 128 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
Packet Page 129 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and
maintain a downtown public restroom.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action
Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed
downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be
a valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability of funds.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL 300,000
Packet Page 130 of 468
Packet Page 131 of 468
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
Packet Page 132 of 468
Packet Page 133 of 468
Safety / Capacity Analysis
$251,046 (Federal or State secured)$251,046
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$43,954 (Local Funds)$43,954
$295,000 Total $295,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,115,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $163,000 $852,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$1,115,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $852,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000
$10,000 Total $10,000
$3,588,077 (Federal or State secured)$481,447 $3,106,630
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured)
$2,134,510 (Local Funds)$230,140 $1,904,370
$5,722,587 Total $711,587 $5,011,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$4,964,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$4,964,000 Total $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000
$5,375,000 (Federal or State secured)$3,431,500 $1,943,500
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured)
$518,500 (Local Funds)$518,500
$5,893,500 Total $3,950,000 $1,943,500
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
Appropriation $0 (Local Funds)
$10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,431,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,431,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$10,211,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $10,211,000
Intersection improvements to
decrease intersection delay and
improve level of service (LOS).
Installation of a traffic signal to
reduce the intersection delay and
improve Level of Service (LOS).
Install gateway elements and safety
improvements along SR-99 Corridor.
2021-2025
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
212th St SW @ 84th Ave W
(5corners) Intersection Improvements
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Reduce intersection delay by
converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for
both the southbound and
northbound movements.
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
Main St. and 9th Ave S (Interim
Solution)
2018 2019 2020
Improve safety at the intersection by
stop controller intersection for NB
and SB to a signalized intersection.
Grant
Opportunity
(2015-2020)
Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source
Project
Phase
Realign highly skewed intersection
to address safety and improve
operations; create new east-west
corridor between SR-99 and I-5.
220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
Reconfigure EB lane and add
protected/permissive for the NB and
SB LT to improve the intersection
delay.
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th
St. SW)
Project Name
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Intersection improvements to
decrease intersection delay and
improve level of service.
Install two-way left turn lanes to
improve capacity and install sidewalk
along this stretch to increase
pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with
Snohomish County; total cost: ~20
Million).
Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
4
6
8
2021-2025201820192020
Grant
Opportunity
(2015-2020)
Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source
Project
PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,722,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$3,722,000 Total $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$5,046,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$5,046,000 Total $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$5,235,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$5,235,000 Total $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$906,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $906,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,093,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,093,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to
add a westbound right turn lane (for
325' storage length) and a
soutbound left turn lane (for 275'
storage length).
Install traffic signal to improve the
Level of Service (LOS) and reduce
intersection delay.
Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection
Improvements
Convert all-way controlled
intersection into signalized
intersection.
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection
Improvements
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection
Improvements
Widen 212th St. SW to add a
westbound left turn lane for 200'
storage length and an eastbound left
turn phase for eastbound and
westbound movements.
Convert all-way controlled
intersection into signalized
intersection.
Widen 216th St. SW to add a left
turn lane for eastbound and
westbound lanes.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
4
6
8
2021-2025201820192020
Grant
Opportunity
(2015-2020)
Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source
Project
PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,520,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$1,520,000 Total $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000
$392,109 (Federal or State secured)$392,109
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Design $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$392,109 Total $392,109
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$65,000 Total $65,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$65,000 Total $65,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$82,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$82,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$82,000 Total $82,000
$8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650
Possible $1,816,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,816,000
RCO / TIB Grant Design $283,000 (Unsecured)$283,000
$1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350
$2,109,000 Total $10,000 $2,099,000
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St.
Walkway
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th
Ave. S Walkway
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to
Caspers St.
Provide sidewalk on west side of the
street, facing waterfront.
236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR-
104) to Madrona Elementary
Improve pedestrian safety along
236th St. SW, creating a safe
pedestrian connection between SR-
104 and Madrona Elementary
Provide safe and desirable route to
Seview Elementary and nearby
parks.
80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to
Olympic View Dr Walkway and sight
distance improvements
Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave.
S Walkway
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
4
6
8
2021-2025201820192020
Grant
Opportunity
(2015-2020)
Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source
Project
PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Grant for Design $2,306,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$349,000 $1,957,000
funding currently Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
under review $0 (Local Funds)
$2,306,000 Total $349,000 $1,957,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$189,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$189,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$29,000 (Local Funds)$29,000
$218,000 Total $218,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$325,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$325,000 $760,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$0
$0 (Local Funds)
$325,000 Total $325,000 $760,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$190,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$190,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$190,000 Total $190,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$380,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$380,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$380,000 Total $380,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,900,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,000,000 $2,900,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$425,000 (Local Funds)$425,000
$4,325,000 Total $1,425,000 $2,900,000
$519,041 (Federal or State secured)$519,041
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Design $0 (Unsecured)
$1,038,893 (Local Funds)$1,038,893
$1,557,934 Total $1,557,934
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,249,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,249,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$189,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $189,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99
to 72nd Ave W
Provide sidewalk on north side of
216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd
Ave W (completing missing link)
Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing
link.
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main
St. to 200th St. SW
Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to
ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW
(Maplewood Elementary School).
Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave.
S Walkway
Provide short missing link.
Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave.
S Walkway
Provide short missing link.
189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to
78th Ave. W Walkway
Provide short missing link.
Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 /
196th St. SW Walkway
Reconstruct sidewalk (ex.
conditions: rolled curb / unsafe
conditions) along a stretch with high
pedestrian activity and elementary
school.
4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer
corridor along 4th Ave.
238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to
104th Ave W Walkway and
Stormwater Improvements
Provide safe walking route between
minor arterial and collector.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
4
6
8
2021-2025201820192020
Grant
Opportunity
(2015-2020)
Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source
Project
PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$175,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $175,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,050,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,050,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$60,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
$60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
$6,000 (Federal or State secured)$6,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$6,000 Total $6,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$350,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $300,000
$350,000 Total $50,000 $300,000
Total CFP $50,749,130 Annual CFP Totals $6,976,630 $7,274,500 $10,000 $6,418,000 $11,942,000 $18,128,000 $18,157,000
Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025
$10,133,923 Total Federal & State (Secured)$5,083,793 $5,050,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$40,920,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $6,308,000 $12,669,000 $21,943,000 $760,000
$283,000 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $283,000 $0 $0 $17,397,000
$4,582,207 Local Funds $1,892,837 $2,224,370 $10,000 $435,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0
Revenue Summary by Year
84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW
and 186th St. SW Walkway
Provide safe walking route between
those (2) local streets.
238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th
Ave. W Walkway
Provide safe walking route between
principal arterial and minor arterial.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic
Calming
To assist residents and City staff in
responding to neighborhood traffic
issues related to speeding, cut-
through traffic and safety.
Trackside Warning System or Quiet
Zone @ Dayton and Main St.
Crossings
Install Trackside Warning System
and Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main
St. Railroad Crossings in order to
reduce noise level within Downtown
Edmonds.
15th St SW from Edmonds Way to
8th Ave S
Provide safe walking route between
minor arterial and collector.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
4
6
8
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also
includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop-controlled for all
approaches. A roundabout would be constructed. The project also includes various utility
upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (ROADWAY ROJECT
PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays
during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS.
SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction $295,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $295,000
Packet Page 140 of 468
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave.
W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated 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 is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in
2009 Transportation Plan: #8).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St.
SW.
SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved
by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to
this project (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$100,000 $163,000
Construction $852,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000
Packet Page 141 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S
(interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th Ave. with the
removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan
project priority chart)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and
the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The re-
striping of 9th Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the
installation of a mini-roundabout.
SCHEDULE: 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$1,000
Construction $9,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
Packet Page 142 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-
turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of
various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (ROADWAY ROJECT
PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in
Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$711,587
Construction $5,011,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $711,587 $5,011,000
Packet Page 143 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$4,964,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during
southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan:
#11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured
funding).
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$500,000 $836,000
Construction $3,628,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000
Packet Page 144 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2)
Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised
median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99
5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in
2009 Transportation Plan: #1).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake
Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east-
west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW
will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd
Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades.
SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants
were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99
(Phase 3) Lighting project.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration, and
ROW
Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
Packet Page 145 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway /
Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement
sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access
control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater
management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well
as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area
as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for
2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$500,000
Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000
Packet Page 146 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,431,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for
all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By
2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D).
The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$286,000
Construction $1,145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,431,000
Packet Page 147 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW
to 238th St. SW)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list
of the 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
Packet Page 148 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for
eastbound and westbound movements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$341,000 $686,000
Construction $2,695,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000
Packet Page 149 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for
325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage
length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve existing intersection delay from 72 seconds
(w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for
all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$484,000 $737,000
Construction $3,825,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000
Packet Page 150 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length.
Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound
movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering,
ROW, &
Administration
$502,000 $765,000
Construction $3,968,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000
Packet Page 151 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane
for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration
lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce
intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$180,000
Construction $726,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $906,000
Packet Page 152 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop
controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation
Plan: #2)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS
E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement).
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
Packet Page 153 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop
controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation
Plan: #7).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
Packet Page 154 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St
SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight
distance improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ~ 3,000’ sidewalk on 80th Ave West between
188th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic
View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). 80th Ave. W
will be re-graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview
Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would
create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School
(188th St. SW).
SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2020
(unsecured funding for all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$125,000 $125,000
Construction $1,270,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000
Packet Page 155 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that
stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long
Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route
near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. The project is funded
through the Safe Routes to School Grant program.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
Construction $392,109
1% for Art
TOTAL $392,109
Packet Page 156 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on
2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in
2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2018 (Unsecured Funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$65,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $65,000
Packet Page 157 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave.
S to 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’)
on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list
in 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $65,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $65,000
Packet Page 158 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave.
S and 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $82,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $82,000
Packet Page 159 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway
from Bell St to Caspers St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the
proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is
completed.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study $10,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $2,099,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000
Packet Page 160 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW
(~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to
Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (grant application
recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$349,000
Construction $1,957,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000
Packet Page 161 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $218,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$41,000
Construction $177,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $218,000
Packet Page 162 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd.
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,085,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a sidewalk on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th
Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no
sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route
connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with
sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is
directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr.
SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between
2021 and 2026.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $325,000 $760,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $325,000 $760,000
Packet Page 163 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th
Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’)
on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project
list in 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $190,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $190,000
Packet Page 164 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th
Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 700’) on
Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $380,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $380,000
Packet Page 165 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor
Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan
developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center
for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area &
will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled
for 2018 and 2019 (pending additional grant funding and local match).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000
Packet Page 166 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th
Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and
Stormwater Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will
also be incorporated into the project (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian
connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding
was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to
School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,557,934
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,557,934
Packet Page 167 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St.
to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,249,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation
Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. Ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of
rolled curb (~ 0.75 mile / ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation
Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access to Yost Park
and Edmonds Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,049,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,249,000
Packet Page 168 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W
to 78th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street (approximately 750’).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex.
sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W
to 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $154,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $189,000
Packet Page 169 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St.
SW and 186th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street (approximately 750’).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids
walking to Seaview Elementary.
Packet Page 170 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
76th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW (approximately ½ mile).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating
safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$210,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,050,000
Packet Page 171 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood
Traffic Calming
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City
staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and
safety.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and
traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations.
SCHEDULE: Annual program
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Packet Page 172 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds
Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 600’) on 15th
St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009
Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids
attending Sherwood Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100%
grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $6,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $6,000
Packet Page 173 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or
Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and
Main St. Railroad Crossings.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds
area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections).
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
50,000
Construction $300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $300,000
Packet Page 174 of 468
Packet Page 175 of 468
CFP
STORMWATER
Packet Page 176 of 468
Packet Page 177 of 468
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Design $465,318 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $327,818 $12,500
$1,495,954 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$100,000 $375,000 $983,454 $37,500
$1,961,272 Total $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible Grant/TBD Study $5,312,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000
$1,920,500 (Debt/Stormwater)$203,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $650,000 $5,000
$7,233,000 Total $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,672,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500
$597,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$85,000 $125,000 $125,000 $212,500 $37,500 $12,500
$2,270,000 Total $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000
Total CFP $11,464,272 Annual CFP Totals $683,000 $1,750,000 $2,911,272 $3,300,000 $2,750,000 $70,000
Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$0 Total Federal & State (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$7,450,318
Total Federal & State
(Unsecured)$295,000 $1,062,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500
$4,013,954 Debt / Stormwater Fees $388,000 $687,500 $1,383,454 $850,000 $687,500 $17,500
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage
Improvements.
Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce
intersection flooding.
Revenue Summary by Year
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow
Creek/Day lighting/Restoration
Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better
connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce
flooding.
Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project
Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive
stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding
and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.
Project Name Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Grant/Date
Current Project
Phase
(2015-2020)
Total Cost 2020Revenue Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
8
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
9
o
f
4
6
8
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger
Cr/Willow Cr – Daylighting
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility
of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation,
construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100
linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and
construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts
to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help
eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for
salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000
Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
Packet Page 180 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives
to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction
phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood
(half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County
Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank
stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the
2013-2014 Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000
Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000
Perrinville
Creek
Packet Page 181 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104
Drainage Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and
Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study $100,000
Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000
Construction $1,311,272
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000
Packet Page 182 of 468
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2015-2020
DRAFT
Packet Page 183 of 468
Packet Page 184 of 468
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2015-2020)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 7
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
10
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
11
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
13
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
15
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
17
421 Water Projects Public Works 18
422 Storm Projects Public Works 19
423 Sewer Projects Public Works 21
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
23
PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
27
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
54
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
57
Packet Page 185 of 468
Packet Page 186 of 468
CIP
GENERAL
Packet Page 187 of 468
Packet Page 188 of 468
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 112 - Transportation Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Preservation / Maintenance Projects
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$940,000 $1,300,000 $1,650,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $14,150,000
5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St $15,799 $0
220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,040,000 $1,040,000
Citywide - Signal Improvements $258,000 $3,000 $325,000 $325,000 $653,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis
212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $3,426,637 $295,000 $295,000
228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $308,501 $3,950,400 $1,943,500 $5,893,900
76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $146,125 $711,587 $5,011,000 $5,722,587
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Guardrail $50,000 $50,000
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $1,115,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000
Main St. @ 9th Ave. S (Interim solution)X $10,000 $10,000
220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements X $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $4,964,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $5,235,000
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $3,722,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $5,046,000
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000
Non-motorized transportation projects
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $40,203 $10,000 $2,099,000 $2,109,000
238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $99,747 $1,557,934 $1,557,934
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $323,196 $6,000 $6,000
236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $27,931 $392,109 $392,109
Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $29,407 $305,000 $349,593 $654,593
ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $128,222 $10,000 $10,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000
80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway Sight Distance
Improvements X $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $1,520,000
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $65,000 $65,000
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $349,000 $1,957,000 $2,306,000
Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X $325,000 $325,000
Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $190,000 $190,000
Walnut St. from 6th Ave. to 7th Ave. Walkway X $380,000 $380,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000
Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $65,000 $65,000
Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $82,000 $82,000
216th ST. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $218,000 $218,000
Re-Striping of 76th Ave W from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 $790,000
Citywide Bicycle Connections (additional bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 $240,000
Traffic Calming Projects
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Sunset Ave, other stretches)X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
9
o
f
4
6
8
Traffic Planning Projects
Transportation Plan Update $40,000 $140,000 $140,000
SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 $106,000
Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $350,000
Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing
and Prioritizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Access, Also
Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton
Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4)
Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as
Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Projects $5,837,768 $10,147,030 $10,044,093 $2,510,000 $9,875,000 $14,529,000 $26,403,000 $73,508,123
Transfers
Transfer to Fund 117 (212th St SW / 84th Ave W (Five Corners) Roundabout)$2,122
Debt Service
Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,959 $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415
Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,341 $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706
Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $35,018 $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032
Total Debt & Transfers $78,440 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance $481,154 $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
Transfer in - Fund 125 - REET 2 - Annual Street Preservation Program $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Transfer in - Fund 126 - REET 1 - Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Transfer in - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $319,000 $550,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $2,200,000 $850,000 $2,400,000
Transfer in - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000 $300,000
Transfer in - Fund 421 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $665,000
Transfer in - Fund 422 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $762,000
Transfer in - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $200,000
Transfer in - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500
Transfer in - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $250,000
Transfer in - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$4,000
Transfer in - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $645,000
Transfer in - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $15,000 $106,000
Transfer in - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $774,000
Transfer in - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $29,909 $1,038,893
Transfer in - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000
Transfer in- Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000
Traffic Impact Fees $100,000 $74,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Revenues $3,340,063 $4,045,625 $4,060,479 $1,635,919 $3,450,684 $2,058,810 $3,883,297
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
0
o
f
4
6
8
Grants 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Federal) for 5th Ave S Overlay $13,667
(Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $780,000
(Federal) - for Citywide - Cabinet Improvements / Ped. Countdown Display $258,000 $3,000
(Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $1,674,451 $251,046
(Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $286,588 $3,431,900 $1,943,500
(Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $61,523 $467,096 $3,106,630
(Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$34,776 $8,650
(State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $69,838 $519,041
(State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $323,196 $6,000
(Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $27,931 $392,109
(Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$29,407 $305,000 $279,000
(Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$90,000
(Verdantl) for Re-striping of 76th Ave from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000
(Verdant) for Citywide Bicycle Connections (bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured)
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$1,250,000 $1,450,000
Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000
76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $50,000
196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $100,000 $163,000 $852,000
Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000
220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements $500,000 $836,000 $3,625,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,816,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000
80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway & Sight Distance Improvements $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000
2nd Ave From Main St to James St $65,000
Maplewood Dr. Walkway $349,000 $1,957,000
Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway $325,000
Walnut from 3rd to 4th Ave. Walkway $190,000
Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Ave. Walkway $380,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000
Maple St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $65,000
Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $82,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $189,000
Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton St/Main St RR Crossings $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000
Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000
Total Revenues & Grants $6,209,440 $10,469,467 $10,159,609 $2,885,919 $10,203,684 $15,127,810 $27,273,297
Total Projects ($5,837,768)($10,147,030)($10,044,093)($2,510,000)($9,875,000)($14,529,000)($26,403,000)
Total Debt ($78,440)($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153)
Ending Cash Balance $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 $796,144
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
1
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
State Transportation Appropriations - Current Law -Local Matching $
Federal Funding (Unsecured)
ST2
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Revenue $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
2
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 116 - Building Maintenance
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Accessibility $17,874 $50,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $20,000 $40,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000
Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Blinds $10,000 $10,000
Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000
Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000
Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $300,000 $25,000 $325,000
Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000
City Hall Carpet Replacement $50,000 $50,000
City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $25,000 $20,000 $45,000
City Hall Security Measures $25,000 $25,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000
ESCO III Project $367,600 $0
ESCO IV Project $300,000 $300,000
Fishing Pier Rehab $190,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000 $30,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000
Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000
Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000
Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $35,000 $50,000 $85,000
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000
Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000
Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $20,000 $20,000
Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $20,000 $10,000 $30,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0
Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000
Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $43,000 $0
Public Works Decant Improvements $60,000 $0
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0
Total Projects $678,474 $1,755,000 $294,000 $215,000 $310,000 $232,000 $265,000 $3,071,000
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
3
o
f
4
6
8
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)-$96,490 $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749
Interest Earnings $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer from Gen Fund #001 and other $421,047 $591,600 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Commerce Grants $187,566 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Secured)$190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$12,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749
Total Revenue $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749
Total Project ($678,474)($1,755,000)($294,000)($215,000)($310,000)($232,000)($265,000)
Ending Cash Balance $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749 $6,749
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
4
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Park Development Projects*
Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000
Brackett's Landing Improvements $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000
City Park Revitalization $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $175,000
Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Sunset Avenue Walkway $200,000 $200,000
Fishing Pier & Restrooms $10,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $150,000
Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $0 $1,330,000
Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Marina Beach Park Improvements $0 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000
Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $0 $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $90,000
Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000
Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Seaview Park Improvements $0 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $35,000
Sierra Park Improvements $40,000 $70,000 $110,000
Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 $485,000
Citywide Park Improvements*
Citywide Beautification $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible N/A $43,000
Misc Paving $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000
Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $360,000
Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000
Specialized Projects*
Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0
Trail Development*
Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000
Planning
Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0
Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 $235,000
Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000
Civic Center Master Plan $100,000
Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000
Total Project $323,000 $1,056,000 $842,000 $750,000 $945,000 $750,000 $255,000 $4,598,000
Transfers
Transfer to Park Fund 132 (4th Ave Cultural Corridor)$25,000
Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Cultural Heritage Tour)
Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza)
Transfer to Park Fund 132 (City Park Revitalization)
Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $655,000
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Total Transfers $325,000 $1,405,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Total Project &Transfers $648,000 $2,461,000 $992,000 $900,000 $1,095,000 $900,000 $405,000
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
5
o
f
4
6
8
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,508,584 $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184
Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000
Donations (Milltown, unsecured)
Interest Earnings $4,600 $4,000
Total Revenues $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184
Total Revenue $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184
Total Project & Transfers ($648,000)($2,461,000)($992,000)($900,000)($1,095,000)($900,000)($405,000)
Ending Cash Balance $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 $516,184
*Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects.
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
6
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Debt Service on City Hall $300,003 $0
Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $80,528 $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $493,568
Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,998 $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $333,788
Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,763 $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $178,703
Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0 $100,000 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $868,750
Total Debt $468,292 $271,400 $323,133 $325,697 $318,516 $316,406 $319,657 $1,874,809
Project Name
Acquistion of Civic Field
Misc. Open Space/Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Transfers
Transfer to 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,510,000
Total Project & Transfers $521,000 $460,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $3,710,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$464,855 $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741
Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000
Interest Earnings $2,330 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Total Revenues $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741
Grants 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741
Total Debt ($468,292)($271,400)($323,133)($325,697)($318,516)($316,406)($319,657)
Total Project & Transfers ($521,000)($460,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)
Ending Cash Balance $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 $305,084
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
7
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 129 - Special Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
State Route (SR) 99 International District Enhancements $13,653 $0
Total Projects $13,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Balance (January 1st)$6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Investment Interest
Total Revenues $6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Grants 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2106 2017 2018 2019 2020
PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Grants $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Grants $29,575 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Total Construction Projects ($13,653)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $15,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
8
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 132 - Parks Construction
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000
Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $7,015 $0
Dayton Street Plaza $60,000 $108,000 $108,000
Civic Center Acquisition $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $6,100,000
Senior Center Parking Lot / Drainage $0
City Park Revitalization $372,100 $854,900 $854,900
Former Woodway HS Improvements $0 $655,000 $655,000
Waterfront Acquisition, demo, rehab $900,000 $0
Wetland Mitigation $12,517
Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000
Fishing Pier Rehab $1,300,000
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0
Total Projects $1,351,632 $6,117,900 $100,000 $3,000,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $13,542,900
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$823,000 $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912
Beginning Cash Balance Milltown
Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500
Transfer in from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Transfer in from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Transfer in from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Transfer in from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500
Transfer in from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match
Transfer in from Fund 125 for 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement
Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza
Transfer in from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization
Transfer in from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000
Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center Parking Lot
Transfer in from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition $200,000 $200,000
Transfer in from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000
Transfer in from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000
Total Revenues $1,728,000 $1,696,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912
Grants 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Grants/ Loans (Secured)
4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)$2,500
Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom)
Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ)
Interurban Trail (State RCO)
City Park Snohomish County Grant $80,000
City Park Spray Park (donations)$270,000
RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $155,517 $313,009
Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding
Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000
Wetland Mitigation $12,517
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,020,534 $313,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000
RCO land acquisition grant $1,000,000
Bond funding $2,000,000
Grants/RCO Fishing Pier $1,200,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $4,200,000 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0
Grants Subtotal $1,020,534 $4,513,009 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0
Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,748,534 $6,209,911 $92,011 -$7,989 -$1,582,989 -$107,989 $282,912
Total Construction Projects (1,351,632.00)($6,117,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0
Ending Cash Balance $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912
*Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
9
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 421 - Water Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Total
(2015-2020)
2013 Replacement Program $53,000 $0
2014 Replacement Program $1,860,784 $45,000 $45,000
2014 Waterline Overlays $190,000 $0
2015 Replacement Program $175,541 $2,737,151 $2,737,151
2015 Waterline Overlays $124,000 $124,000
2016 Replacement Program $391,788 $2,044,722 $2,436,510
2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947
2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159
2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605
2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150
2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $449,946
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $110,000 $1,090,100 $1,200,100
76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)$87,870 $2,000 $2,000
Telemetry System Improvements $20,000 $71,100 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $13,400 $13,900 $135,600
2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $89,500 $175,600
Total Projects $2,387,195 $3,567,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,233,768
Transfers & Reinbursements
Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph1 SS Repl.)$380,000 $0
Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph2 SS Repl.)$325,000
Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners)$665,000 $0
Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$200,000 $200,000
Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000
Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2014 Watermain)$833 $0
Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$2,000 $2,000
Total Transfers $1,400,833 $272,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $272,000
Total Water Projects $3,788,028 $3,839,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,505,768
Revenues & Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Connection Fee Proceeds $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Interfund Transfer in from Fund 411
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 2013 Watermain
Fund 423 Reinbursement for 2014 WL Overlay $50,000
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $180,000 $150,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010
2013 Bond
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $255,000 $175,000 $139,600 $144,184 $148,900 $153,856 $159,010
Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $5,400,000 $1,200,000
Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $5,400,000 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Transfers
Ending Cash Balance
Projects for 2015-2020
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
0
o
f
4
6
8
CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near
107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W. (See Note 1)X $369,614 $2,000 $2,000
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. (See Note 2)$73,000 $517,255 $517,255
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $17,500 $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $1,961,272
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $550,607 $10,000 $560,607
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Dr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study /
Marsh Restoration (See Note 2 & 4)X $274,000 $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $7,233,000
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment /
Stabilization $28,000 $433,356 $433,356
Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr $50,000 $25,000 $75,000
Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study (See Note 2)
$300,809 $1,000 $1,000
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)X $50,000 $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 $2,270,000
Vactor Waste handling (Decant) facility upgrade (See Note 2)$152,681 $2,000 $2,000
88th Ave W and 194th St SW $25,000 $253,400 $253,400
Improvements Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th $0 $108,809 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $2,308,809
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $236,000 $224,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $5,724,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $20,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $398,000
Storm System Video Assessment $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,100,000
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset
management plan)$128,750 $132,613 $261,363
$1,546,604 $2,586,820 $4,368,357 $5,469,885 $4,818,000 $4,168,000 $1,690,000 $23,101,062
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
Total Project
Capital Improvements Program
PROJECT NAME
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
Projects for 2015-2020Fund 422 Storm
Northstream Projects
Annually Funded Projects
5 Year Cycle Projects
Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
1
o
f
4
6
8
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
Infiltration System)$25,909 $709,180 $709,180
Five Corners Roundabout $762,000 $100,000 $100,000
228th SW Corridor Improvements $0 $68,500 $68,500
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $30,000 $30,000
Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $585,000
Total Transfer to 112 Fund $905,909 $913,680 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,492,680
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace infiltration pipe (near
107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W.$3,546 $0
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
infiltration system)$0
$5,904
$5,904
Five Corners Roundabout $7,620 $0
228th SW Corridor improvements $0 $685 $685
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0
Total Transfer to 117 Fund $11,166 $6,589 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,589
$917,075 $920,269 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,499,269
$2,463,679 $3,507,089 $4,477,357 $5,681,885 $4,934,000 $4,187,000 $1,813,000 $24,600,331
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
$200,000
$70,000
$168,852
X $50,000
$115,000
$623,852 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$3,500,000
$258,628
X $160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000
X $135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500
X $0 $125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $0 $0
$0 $553,628 $4,562,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500
1. 238th St SW drainage project has been merged with sidewalk project and is now under "Transfers to 112- Street Fund."
2. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.
3. Assumed 50% grant funded in 2015
4. Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2016
5. Assumes grant funding is 25% of total project costs per year beginning 2016
Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See
Note 4)
Total Secured Revenues
Total Project & Transfers
Ending Cash Balance
Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Total Unsecured Revenues
Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See
Note 3 & 4)
Notes:
Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge)
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Total Revenue
Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility
Study/Marsh Restoration
Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Study
Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects
Grants (Secured) - Waste handling facility upgrade
Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr -
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 4)
Grant (Secured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project
Grant (Unsecured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project
(Seet Note 3)
Projects for 2014-2019
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
Total Project & Transfers
Total Transfers
To 117 - Arts
Transfers
To 112 - Street Fund
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
4
6
8
CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $245,000 $3,000 $3,000
Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $1,530,799 $22,500 $22,500
Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,149,970 $55,000 $55,000
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $184,961 $2,051,073 $2,051,073
2015 Sewerline Overlays $117,600 $117,600
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $411,622 $1,506,704 $1,918,326
2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655
2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575
2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142
2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406
2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $313,736
2013 CIPP Rehabilitation $58,706 $0
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $5,000 $524,600 $400,000 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $2,648,254
224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $30,895 $0
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $100,000 $100,000
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $100,000 $100,000
$4,205,331 $3,385,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $14,988,267
Reinbursement to Fund 421 (2014 WL Overlay)$50,000 $0
Reinbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$250,000 $250,000
Reinbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000
$80,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000
$4,285,331 $3,705,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $15,308,267
Capital Improvements Program
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
Total Projects, Transfers & Reinbursements
Transfers & Reinbursements
Total Transfers
Projects for 2015-2020
PROJECT NAME
Fund 423 - Sewer Projects
Total Projects
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
3
o
f
4
6
8
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000
$380,000
$325,000
$733,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$0 $0 $5,800,000 $900,000 $0 $0
$0 $0 $5,800,000 $0 $900,000 $0 $0
Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 2 Sewer Replacement)
Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 1 Sewer Replacement)
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Sewer Connection Fees
Ending Cash Balance
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc)
Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Transfers
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
4
o
f
4
6
8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423.76 - WWTP
PROJECT NAME CFP 2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(2015-2020)
Repair and Replacement $18,000 $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $125,000 $725,000
Construction Projects - In House $133,000 $20,000 $50,000 $70,000
Construction Projects Contracted $955,728 $1,482,247 $2,691,424 $2,000,000 $5,350,000 $875,000 $875,000 $13,273,671
Debt Service - Principle and Interest $255,385 $256,166 $256,296 $255,117 $254,499 $255,231 $255,848 $1,533,157
Total Project $1,362,113 $1,758,413 $2,997,720 $2,455,117 $5,904,499 $1,230,231 $1,255,848
Projects less revenue from outside partnership $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848
Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Intergovernmental $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848
Interest Earnings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000
Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $58,000 $285,500
Subtotal $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848
Total Revenue $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848
Total Project ($1,362,113)($1,758,413)($2,997,720)($2,455,117)($5,904,499)($1,230,231)($1,255,848)
Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year
Contribution breakdown by agency
2014
Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Edmonds 50.79%$655,616 $741,344 $1,515,748 $1,240,176 $2,992,014 $618,094 $637,808
Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$299,156 $338,274 $691,633 $565,890 $1,365,250 $282,035 $291,030
Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$213,659 $241,597 $493,968 $404,162 $975,069 $201,431 $207,855
Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$122,482 $138,498 $283,171 $231,689 $558,966 $115,472 $119,155
TOTALS 100.00%$1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848
Projects for 2014-2019
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
5
o
f
4
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
6
o
f
4
6
8
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Packet Page 207 of 468
Packet Page 208 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court/Stage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 209 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
repairs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 210 of 468
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,530,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition
of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in
many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased
health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require
little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
Packet Page 211 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 212 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive
views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown
business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and
trails system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This sidewalk has been a priority for the City of Edmonds
for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan,
Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan,
Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program.
Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook
priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal access, complete the bicycle and
pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
Packet Page 213 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,350,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 214 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,830,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2019
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $ $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 215 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 216 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $130,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and
improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 217 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and
improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 218 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $90,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 219 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to
renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for
Edmonds citizens.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Engineering &
Administration
Construction 250,000 $250,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0
Packet Page 220 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2015
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
Packet Page 221 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $35,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 222 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000 $70,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $70,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 223 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $605,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 224 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $73,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings,
streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
After 2016, this expense will no longer be eligible out of REET.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $30,000 $21,000 $22,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible
Packet Page 225 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $31,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 226 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 70000
Packet Page 227 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade /
Playground Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
Packet Page 228 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 229 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 230 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 231 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $295,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget
Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes
planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020
Planning/Study 35,000 $45,000
Engin. & Admin.
Construction $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000
Packet Page 232 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery
Mapping
ESTIMATED COST:$ 100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982.
The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed
mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively
manage the plots.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and
accurate stewardship.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study $100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 233 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 234 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000
Packet Page 235 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $592,564 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 165,907
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 236 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens
that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 200,000 200,000
Packet Page 237 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Packet Page 238 of 468
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue
Corridor Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The
Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park
Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 239 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and
Way-Finding Signage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7015
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic
sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core
downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist
made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which
points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station,
shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront
activity center.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $7015
1% for Art
TOTAL $7015
Packet Page 240 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $60,000 $108,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000 $108,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 241 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025
Acquisition $20,000 $3M
Planning/Study 100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3M
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 242 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking
Lot/Drainage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including
pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and
landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. This project is grant
dependent.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 243 of 468
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,335,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition
of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in
many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased
health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require
little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $372,100 $854,900
1% for Art
TOTAL $372,100 $854,900
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
Packet Page 244 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community
colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful
regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-
2025
Planning/Study $655,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $655,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
Packet Page 245 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition,
demolition, rehabilitation of land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcel, demolish existing structure, and restore
beachfront to its natural state. This has been a priority in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound, restoration of natural habitat.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL 900,000
Packet Page 246 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,517
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $12,517
1% for Art
TOTAL $12,517
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 247 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow
Creek Daylighting
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
Packet Page 248 of 468
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
Packet Page 249 of 468
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION
112 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave.2" pavement grind and overlay with ADA curb ramp upgrades
112 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Provide protective /
permissive left turn phasing for both movements.
112 Re-striping of 76th Ave. W from 220th to OVD Re-striping of 76th with addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street
112 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W X Installation of 150' of sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW.
112 Trackside Warning System / Quiet Zone (Dayton and
Main RR crossings)X Installation of trackside warning system or Quiet Zone system at
(2) railroad crossings (Main St. and Dayton St.)
116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2015 funding
116 Anderson Center Accessibility CDBG Grant application coming in 2014 for wheelchair lift.
116 City Hall Security Measures Subject of a DP for 2015 funding.
116 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs If deemed necessary per on-going investigation.
125 Sunset Avenue Walkway X Alignment with Fund 112 CIP.
125 Fishing Pier Rehab In partnership with WDFW, contingent upon grant funds.
125 Pavement Preservation Program
125 REET Parks and 125 REET Transportation combined into one spreadsheet
titled 125 Capital Projects Fund. Added transfer to the 112 Street Fund.
125 Meadowdale Playfields Intalling turf fields, in partnership with Lynnwood and Edmonds School
District, and contingent upon grant funds.
132 Civic Center Acquisitoin X Purchase of Civic Center from the School District
421 2021 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421 2015 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
422 105th/106 Ave SW Drianage Improvements
This project was in 2012-2017 CIP but removed the following year. Advanced
maintenance by the Public Worls Crews worked for a few years, but now the
system needs to be replaced.
423 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Imprvmnts Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr.
423 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Estimated cost for Study to determine how to replace/rehab/improve trunk
sewerline located directly west of Lake Ballinger. Preliminary costs for this
project will be generated under this task.
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015)
ADDED PROJECTS
Packet Page 250 of 468
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION
112 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Project removed from list to accommodate higher priorities.
112 Main St. from 5th to 6th X Completed in 2013.
112 School zone flashing beacons Completed in 2013.
116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed until 2016.
116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed until 2017.
116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year.
116 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Delayed another year.
116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Delayed another year.
125 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway Project Completed in 2013.
421 2011 Replacement Program Completed in 2013.
421 2012 Replacement Program Completed in 2013.
421 2012 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2013.
421 224th Waterline Replacement Completed in 2013.
422
Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect
Sumps near Robin Hood Lane X Project not needed at this point due to upstream improvements by Public
Works Crews.
422 Goodhope Pond Basin Study/Projects
New system with detention installed as part of 5 Corners Roundabout project.
Future need for this project will be assessed.
423 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to
prioritize metering needs. It was determined that the metering in the Lift
Station 1 zone and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in
their need to be completed.
423 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to
prioritize smoke testing. It was determined that the Lift Station 1 study and
the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be
completed.
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015)
DELETED PROJECTS
Packet Page 251 of 468
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE
112 Citywide - Signal Improvements Combined w/ Citywide Safety Impr.- Signal Cabinet / Ped. Countdown Displ.
112 Citywide Bicycle Connections Combined with Bicycle Route Signing
116 ESCO IV To be done in 2015. No streetlights. FAC steam system component.
421 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating.
421 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating.
422
Storm Drainage Improvement Project: Dayton St.
Between 6th & 8th
Now called: Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th. More extensive improvements are
needed to reduce the frequency of flooding.
422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
X
Removed from CFP. Culvert/Bridge projects constructed by City of Mountlake
Terrace. No additional capital projects currently planned. Project will remain in
the CIP to work with neighboring jursidictions on policy and other issues.
423 2012 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
423 2013 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
423 Meter Installation Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study
423 Smoke Test Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study
CHANGED PROJECTS
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015)
Packet Page 252 of 468
423.76 Repair and Replacement Repairs to the Pagoda, Secondary Clarifier #3 and coating projects will be
focussed on in late 2014 anf early 2015.
423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations
to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. One station
was completed in 2014, the remaininig station will be completed in 2015.
Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment, provide for
redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. In 2014 PLC 100 will be
replaced. In 2015 PLC 500 and PLC 300 will be replaced. This project will be
completed in 2016. SSI rpoject: In late 2014 we will purchaes the mercury
absortion modules and install them late 2015 or early 2016. Phase 4 energy
improvements: in late 2014 we will replace the plant air compressors and in
2015 we will retrofit A basin 2 with fine bubble diffusers and install a new
blower.
423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for
solids sytem enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to
the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and
focuss on energy improvements.
Packet Page 253 of 468
DRAFT
Subject to October 8th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 24, 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
Daniel Robles
Careen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Ellis (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Holt, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
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.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. In addition to the items outlined on the report, she announced
that the public has invited to a free program that asks the question, “What Does a Vibrant City of the Future Look Like?”
The event is being sponsored by Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and 8-80 Cities and will take place on
September 25th at the Lynnwood Convention Center starting at 6:30 p.m. Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of the Canadian
non-profit organization 8-80 Cities will speak about how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for everyone. She
encouraged Board Member to attend.
Board Member Lovell requested a status report on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He recalled that the Council is
currently considering a modification to the Board’s recommendation that would increase the setback area for development to
150 feet and the buffer area to 50 feet. Ms. Hope emphasized that the City Council has not taken final action on the SMP yet,
but the majority appear to be leaning towards a greater setback. Board Member Lovell advised that the Port of Edmonds has
Packet Page 254 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 2
gone on record in opposition to the increased setback and indicated they would likely take legal action if the greater setbacks
are adopted. Ms. Hope said staff indicated support for the 50-foot buffer, as recommended by the Planning Board and
supported by Best Available Science. Board Member Stewart clarified that the City Council is proposing the increased
setback requirement on a 2-year interim basis. At the end of the two years, the setback could be renegotiated.
Chair Cloutier noted that the City Council is also considering significant modifications to the Board’s recommendation
related to Highway 99 zoning. Ms. Hope acknowledged that the Council conducted a public hearing and voted to amend the
recommendation, but they will not take formal action until a revised ordinance is presented to them at a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP) (FILE NUMBER AMD20150006
Mr. English explained that the CFP and CIP are different documents and have different purposes. The CIP is used as a
budgeting tool and includes both capital and maintenance projects. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act
and is intended to identify longer-term capital needs (not maintenance) to implement the City’s level of service standards and
growth projections. The CFP must be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it can only be
amended once a year. He provided a graph to illustrate how the two plans overlap. He advised that the CFP is comprised of
three sections: general, transportation and stormwater. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects, and
each project is organized by the City’s financial fund numbers. He announced that, this year, the 125 funds were combined
to include both transportation and parks projects to be consistent with the City’s budget.
Mr. English noted that a description of each project was included in the draft CIP. He reviewed some of the projects
identified in the CIP and CFP, as well as the progress that was made over the past year as follows:
The 5 Corners Roundabout Project is nearing completion. This significant project is intended to improve the level of
service (LOS) of the intersection and improve air quality by moving traffic more efficiently through the intersection.
The City Council approved a $1.6 million budget for a Street Preservation Program in 2014. This has enabled staff to
overlay two streets and apply chip seal applications to three streets. Staff is proposing a budget of $1.56 million for the
Street Preservation Program in 2015.
The 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project will start in 2015. As proposed, 228th Street Southwest will be extended
across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West, and the intersections at Highway 99 and 76th Avenue West will
be signalized. 228th Street Southwest will be overlaid from 80th Place West to 2,000 feet east of 72nd Avenue West, and
76th Avenue West will be overlaid from 228th Street Southwest to Highway 99.
Chair Cloutier questioned if the proposed improvements would extend all the way to the border of Mountlake Terrace.
Mr. English answered affirmatively and noted that Mountlake Terrace is also planning improvements for its portion of
228th Street Southwest.
Intersection improvements at 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest are currently under design and the City is in
the process of acquiring additional right-of-way. Construction is planned to start in 2016.
76th Avenue West will be restriped between 220th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive. The section that is
currently four lanes will be reduced to three lanes, with a bike lane. Pre-design work for this project will start in 2015,
with construction in 2016.
Design money has been identified to start the process of looking at the potential of creating a quiet zone or a trackside
warning system at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings. A consultant contract was recently approved, and a
kick-off meeting is scheduled for next week.
The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project has received a lot of discussion at the Council level in recent months. The Council
recently approved a temporary alignment for the walkway as a trail and these improvements will likely be finished
within the next week or two.
Packet Page 255 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 3
A sidewalk will be installed on 15th Street between SR-104 and 8th Avenue utilizing grant funding from the Safe Routes
To School Program. The project should be completed by November of 2014.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps will be installed on 3rd Avenue, and the project will be advertised
this week.
A sidewalk will be installed on the north side of 238th Street Southwest from 100th Avenue West to 104th Avenue West.
Stormwater improvements will also be included with this project, which will be funded via a Safe Routes To School
Grant and Utilities Fund 422.
A walkway will be constructed on the south side of 236th Street Southwest from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary School.
Sharrows will also be added along this stretch. This project is also being funded through the Safe Routes to School
Program.
10,000 feet of water main was replaced in 2014, and two pressure reducing valves were replaced. The City just
completed 2,000 feet of street overlay where water mains were previously replaced. In 2015, they plan to replace 7,000
feet of water main, as well as some pressure reducing valves.
The 4th Avenue Stormwater Project is in progress and is intended to address flooding issues in the downtown caused by
heavy rains. This project should be completed within the next month.
The vactor waste handling facility was completed this year, and they are working to replace the filtration pipes.
The City will build on the study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel
as part the Edmonds Marsh Project. Daylighting the creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and
the Edmond Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped.
A lift station and other new infrastructure will be installed at Dayton Street and SR-104 to improve drainage and reduce
flooding at the intersection.
A flow reduction study has been completed for the Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project, and the
project is currently at the pre-design phase.
Sewer main on Railroad Avenue was replaced in July, and more work is scheduled in 2015. By the end of 2014, the City
will have replaced over 6,000 feet of sewer main in several locations. In 2015, staff is proposing 1,500 feet of cured-in-
place pipe application, 4,000 feet of sewer main replacement, and improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plan.
Board Member Lovell noted that Meadowdale Beach Road is in poor condition, and it does not make sense to install a
sidewalk before the roadway has been repaved. Mr. English pointed out that repaving Meadowdale Beach Road is identified
as a project in the Roadway Preservation Program. If funding is available, it will move forward in 2015. He cautioned that
the street may need more than an overlay to address the problems.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe the differences between the cured-in-place pipe application and replacing
sewer mains. Mr. English said that the cured-in-place application is a trenchless technology that the City has used on a few
projects in the last several years. If a pipeline is cracked but has not lost its grade, you can apply a new interior coating. This
can be done by accessing the manholes within the pipe without having to excavate or cut the street. Staff has spent a
significant amount of time this year collecting data on the existing condition of the pipes to identify those in which the cured-
in-place option would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the cured-in-place application would address root
problems. Mr. English answered that the application is a good way to take care of roots. Depending on the age of the pipes,
they are most likely to connect at the joints, which provide a pathway for roots. The cured-in-place application would be a
continuous inner lining for the pipe so the potential for roots to find gaps or cracks goes away once it is installed.
Packet Page 256 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 4
Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe how the Dayton Street Lift Station would work. Mr. English explained that
there are a lot of different inputs into the stormwater issues in this location such as the Edmonds Marsh, Shellebarger Creek,
and stormwater runoff. In this particular case, when the tide elevation is high, the water cannot drain into the Sound and
flooding occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. The marsh does not drain as well, either. The proposed
project will re-establish the flow through the marsh, and install a lift station that will mechanically lift the water during high
tide so it can be discharged to Puget Sound.
Board Member Stewart referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project and asked about the definition for “multi-use
pathways.” Mr. English answered that there is not really a definition for multi-use pathways. The concept is based more on
width. Ten feet is the standard width for a multi-use pathway, but some are as narrow as 8 feet or as wide as 12 feet. The
goal is to have walkers and bikers use the route together. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to allow some
wheeled access on the pathway, while bikes are routed to the sharrows on the roadway. Mr. English agreed that would be
possible. He noted that while the sharrows for north bound bikers are not in place, bikers going south can use the trail that is
striped.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City would consider green infrastructure as a method of stormwater improvement such as
rain gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement. Mr. English said they are considering a few green options for stormwater.
For example, the Shellebarger Creek High Flow Reduction Study recommends building bio-retention facilities within the
residential areas. These projects are about 90% designed, and the City plans to apply for grants to build them in 2015. There
is also an infiltration facility at Sea View Park to take some of the high flow off Perrinville Creek. Two previously
mentioned projects utilize infiltration methods versus collection and putting the water into the Sound. Board Member
Stewart suggested that these efforts should be noted in the plans.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed the project descriptions. She particularly found the history to be helpful in
understanding how each project originated. She would also like each project description to reference the plan that supports it
and explained why it was proposed. She noted that some of the descriptions provide details about the size of the projects
(i.e. length, square footage, acreage, etc.) She found this helpful to make a connection between a project’s size and its
anticipated cost. She suggested that this information should be provided for each of the project descriptions. Mr. English
agreed that more information could be provided in the project descriptions related to size, but the City does not yet have this
detailed information for some of the projects in the CIP.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that walkway projects are referred to as both sidewalks and walkways. She asked if
there is a reason to make this distinction. Mr. English agreed that the terms could be more consistent. The City secured grant
funding for three sidewalk projects from the Safe Routes to School Program. His guess is that throughout the application
process, the projects were probably identified as walkways as opposed to sidewalks.
Ms. Hite advised that approximately $120,000 is set aside each year in the CIP for park maintenance items. She explained
that although it is not common for cities to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds strictly for parks operations and
maintenance, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows it. However, this provision will sunset at the end of 2016.
Unless it is extended for an additional time period, the City will have to be creative in 2017 to fill the funding gap.
Ms. Hite provided a brief overview of the accomplishments in 2014 related to parks, as well as projects anticipated for 2015:
A new play area was installed at City Park. However, because of issues with drainage and the existing water table, the
spray pad had to be redesigned. Permits for the project were submitted earlier in the week, and the goal is to obtain the
permits and get the project out to bid before the end of the year so construction can start in February or March. It is
anticipated the spray pad will open by Memorial Day 2015. She briefly described some of the features of the new play
area and spray pad.
The Dayton Street Plaza Project has been on the City’s plan for the past few years, and demolition work started this
month. She provided a schematic design of the project for the Board’s information.
Some historic preservation plaques were installed on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, as well as other locations
throughout the downtown. In addition, the Arts Commission has been working on a temporary installation on 4th
Packet Page 257 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 5
Avenue to bring visibility to the corridor. They are holding public meetings regarding the project at this time. However,
the City does not currently have funding to create permanent features along the corridor.
The City has set aside $655,000 in the CIP and the School District has agreed to contribute $500,000 for redevelopment
of the Woodway High School Athletic Field. In 2013, the City received a $750,000 state appropriation from local
representatives, as well as a capital grant of $2.5 million from Verdant Health Care. They now have a total of $4.2
million for the project. In addition to a sports field for soccer, softball, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, the play area will
be upgraded and a new walking path will be provided to connect to the oval track around the football field. The project
is currently in the design phase. The district will construct the project and the City will maintain it and have operational
control of the fields. The redeveloped facility is set to open in September of 2015.
The Yost Pool boiler was replaced in 2014. In addition, new plaster was applied to the bottom of the pool, and a new hot
water tank was installed. They just recently discovered that the spa has a leak that will cost about $100,000 to fix, and
this money was built into the 2015 budget.
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working in partnership with the Stormwater Division on the
Marina Beach Master Plan, which will include daylighting of Willow Creek. Burlington Northern Santa Fe installed a
culvert that can be used for this purpose, and they are currently considering two different alignment options, both of
which will have impacts to Marina Beach Park and/or the dog park. Staff will work with the design team and the public
to come up with the best solution, and they are hoping the work can be completed by next September.
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Community Cultural Plan were updated this year.
The Anderson Field Amphitheater and Meadowdale Club House Playfield will be replaced in 2015.
The City is working in partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to further develop and
maintain the Meadowdale Playfields. They are looking at installing turf on the fields so they can be used year round.
The School District has allotted $1 million for the project, and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood have agreed to
contribute, as well. They have applied for a grant to help fund the project, and they are hoping to have enough money
put together to start within the next three years.
The City has an aggressive goal to acquire waterfront property and has set aside about $900,000 from a Conservations
Future Grant and REET dollars for this purpose. The City has been negotiating with a property owner, and she is
optimistic that an agreement can be reached.
Rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier has been on the City’s radar since 2009. The facility is located on property owned by
the Port of Edmonds, but the facility is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW).
The City maintains the facility. While the pier looks nice on the outside and is safe, it was constructed 35 years ago and
the salt water environment has caused significant deterioration. WSDFW has offered to give the pier to the City, but the
City would like the rehabilitation work to be completed before ownership is transferred. The City is working in
partnership with the WSDFW to obtain the needed funds, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 million. About $200,000
has been allocated to the project, and the WSDFW has submitted a grant request to the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (RCO) for $1.3 million. The grant scored well, and they are hoping it will be funded so the project
can move forward in 2015.
The City has been working with the Edmonds School District to acquire the Civic Center Playfield. An appraiser was
hired to come up with an appraisal that is acceptable to both parties, and third-party appraiser was also hired to confirm
the findings. The City submitted a grant request for $1 million to the RCO, and the project scored within the range of
projects that were funded last year. However, if there are cuts in the RCO’s budget, the grant may not be funded. If the
City is able to complete the acquisition in 2015, some money will be set aside in 2016 to do a master plan.
Packet Page 258 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 6
Board Member Lovell asked if the City would continue to maintain the Civic Center Playfield in its current state until such
time as it is acquired and redeveloped. Ms. Hite answered that short-term goal is to acquire the property and maintain it as is
until a master plan has been completed and the park is redeveloped.
Board Member Lovell asked if the senior center was identified on the CFP as a placeholder or if the City will dedicate
funding for the project. Ms. Hite said this project will require a partnership with other entities. The City will support the
project as much as possible, but it will not be a City project.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City will partner with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Civic Center Playfield.
Ms. Hite answered that the City is now pursuing a complete acquisition of the site. The district has indicated it does not have
a developer. Ms. Hite agreed that is possible, but the current lease, which runs through 2020, gives the City the first right to
purchase.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the new sports field at the Old Woodway High School would be turf. Ms. Hite answered
affirmatively. She explained that this is something that is desperately needed in the area. Because the City does not have any
turf fields at this time, the season is limited to just over four months each year. The City will continue to maintain its grass
fields, but having an amenity that allows year-round play is important to the parks system.
Vice Chair Tibbott noted that some parks in the City are underutilized. When it comes to thinking of bigger projects like an
aquatics center or acquiring property, he asked if the City has considered selling some of the underutilized park land to
provide funding for new parks and/or needed improvements. Ms. Hite answered that the City currently has a good balance of
neighborhood, community and regional parks, and there are still some deficiencies near Highway 99. They have not
considered the option of selling park land because they do not feel there are surplus parks in the system. All of the parks are
utilized, and even those that just provide green space are desirable to the community.
Board Member Robles referred to Ms. Hite’s report that the City obtained the services of a third-party appraiser to study the
Civic Center Playfield. He asked if the City also uses third-party consultants to conduct condition assessments and feasibility
studies or is the work done in house. Ms. Hite answered that this work is contracted out, and the various grant guidelines
have very rigid rules for assessments and appraisals for parkland acquisition.
Board Member Stewart noted that rest room repairs are identified for Brackett’s Landing. She asked if the City has
considered turning the restrooms over to a concessionaire. Ms. Hite said the City has a program for encouraging
concessionaires in parks, but none have located at Brackett’s Landing to date. Every January, the City sends out a Request
for Proposals, inviting vendors who might want to operate a concession stand in a City-owned park. In total, concessions
brought in $10,000 last year to help with parks. She expressed her belief that the program is a win-win. It provides
additional amenities in parks, as well as funds for park improvements.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City has considered meters in parking areas that serve City parks. Ms. Hite said this
option has been discussed, but it has not received a lot of support from the City Council. If the Board is interested in
pursuing the option, she can facilitate the discussion.
Board Member Stewart noted that the project description for the Sunset Walkway Project indicates that a sidewalk will be
provided on the west side. She asked if this is the same project identified in the CFP. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively,
noting that the $200,000 identified for the project in 2018 will come from the Parks Fund. However, most of the funding for
the project will come from grants and the City’s street improvement fund.
Board Member Stewart referred to the Fishing Pier and Restroom Project and noted that no funding has been set aside for the
Beach Ranger Station, which is old and very small. Ms. Hite agreed that there has been no discussion about replacing the
station, and it was not included as a project in the PROS Plan. However, staff could explore this option further as directed by
the Board.
Board Member Stewart referred to Page 48 of the draft CIP, which talks about Miscelleneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path
Improvements. He asked if the City’s website provides a map showing where the bike paths are located within parks. Ms.
Packet Page 259 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 7
Hite said there are not a lot of bicycle trails through parks, but the City’s goal is to provide exterior connections. These are
not currently listed on the City’s website, but they could be added.
Board Member Stewart observed that, although the draft CIP identifies $1.4 million for waterfront acquisition, the allocations
would be spread out over a seven year period. She suggested the City look for opportunities to partner with non-profits and
apply for grants to obtain additional funding. When land becomes available, the City must move quickly. Developers have
ready cash and the City doesn’t, and that can result in missed opportunities. Ms. Hite agreed that the City needs to create
new funding sources so they are ready to move forward when opportunities come up. The goal is to continue to add money
to the fund each year, but there are also competing priorities for the available park dollars. She emphasized that waterfront
acquisition is identified as a high priority in the PROS Plan, and maintaining a separate fund for this purpose should also be a
priority.
Once again, Board Member Rubenkonig asked that each project description reference the plan/plans that support it and
explain why it was proposed. This allows the community to have a clear understanding of why the project is identified as a
priority for funding. She also asked that the descriptions provide details about the size of the project.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 4th Avenue arts walk, which starts at Main Street, extends all the way to 3rd Avenue.
Ms. Hite answered that it ends at the Performing Arts Center.
Ms. Hite said that in addition to the projects identified in the CFP, members of the Economic Development Commission have
requested that the City study the option of installing a restroom in the downtown area. She suggested that the concept could
be identified in the CFP as a potential project for the City Council’s future consideration. She acknowledged that there is no
money available for a restroom right now, but including it on the CFP allows the City to explore funding opportunities. She
noted that the community has also indicated support for a public restroom in the downtown. The Board indicated support
for the concept, as well.
Mr. English reviewed the schedule for moving the CIP and CFP forward to the City Council for final review and approval.
He noted that the plans were introduced to the City Council on September 23rd. Both documents, along with the Board’s
recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session on October 14th. From that point, the City Council
will conduct a public hearing and take final action. Once approved, the CFP will be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. English thanked the Board for providing comments. The documents are large and he appreciates the Board’s thorough
review and thoughtful comments.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that impact fees were not identified in either plan as a potential funding source for
transportation and walkway improvements. Mr. English said this revenue stream is identified in the CIP under Fund 112. He
explained that the City has both transportation and park impact fee programs, and funds are collected when development
occurs within the City. However, it is important to understand that the money can only be used for certain projects. For
example, transportation impact fee dollars can only be used to address concurrency or LOS.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if some of the funding for the 5 Corners Roundabout Project will be used to study how
well the roundabout is working to determine if it meets its LOS expectation. Mr. English explained that projects of this
magnitude that are funded with federal dollars take quite some time to close out. The money identified in 2015 will be used
for this purpose.
Chair Cloutier opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience, the hearing was closed.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2015 – 2020 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW
AND SUBSEQUENT ADOPTION, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL TAKE UP THE MATTER OF A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE DOWNTOWN. VICE
CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Packet Page 260 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 8
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the
changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional
information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The
Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and
specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with
other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish
County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating
jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the
Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile.
Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13
cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board
that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the
population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost-
effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing
conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities.
Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing,
which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does
not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety,
proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability.
Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:
There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new
residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20
years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of
2,646 units.
The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for
the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.
Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated
in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in
rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing
slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31%
across the County.
The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are
general higher, as well.
A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.
Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30%
of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households
earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.
A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not
affordable to extremely low-income households.
Packet Page 261 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 9
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind
of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s
housing market.
Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other
options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it
possible to keep rent levels down.
Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201
units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy
(i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance
and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).
Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are
rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which
represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the
households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require
different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place.
Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of
options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and
providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to
make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource
for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating
cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying
potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to
housing.
Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this
opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that
many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities
to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the
requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities
to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to
balance the new policies with the other needs of the City.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data
related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity
more.
Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with
Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City
consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed
concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the
variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus
low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various
types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at
some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of
debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to
happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise.
Packet Page 262 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 10
Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they
will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he
questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any
thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce
more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the
AHA is interested in researching this issue.
Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a
revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained
that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful,
yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help
achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set
number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready.
This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff
is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address
affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs.
The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to
measure affordability.
Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to
provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more
market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one
option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population
based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have
housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific
policies on how to encourage more affordable housing.
Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid
permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent.
Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would
only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but
the size of the units has increased.
Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are
serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue
will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable
housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use
development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not
convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically.
Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains
single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both
units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to
five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a
family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations.
There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit
would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units.
Packet Page 263 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 11
Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a
lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units,
requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for
the metrics versus the code.
The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However,
they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to
know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can
afford larger houses, they need smaller units.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units
that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain
their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the
issue would be addressed as part of the strategy.
Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This
article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing,
the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great
track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate
more people is to allow more density.
PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same
presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of
everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the
present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the
Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing
their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number
compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be
courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:
Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site
visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.
Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.
Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that
are being planned.
Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats,
variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved
over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January
through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years.
There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the
economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits.
Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the
Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and
buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that
Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value.
Packet Page 264 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 12
Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most
of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other
cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the
State Department of Commerce. The program has been implemented in a few cities as a pilot to figure out how to streamline
and reduce the costs of solar permitting. A few incentive programs were rolled out recently in Edmonds. He summarized
that it is through a combination of programs that the City is seeing a significant increase in the number of solar permits. This
speaks directly to the work they have done to improve the process and provide more information. The City will continue to
work hard to encourage solar in the community, and he anticipates the numbers will continue to increase.
Ms. Hope reported that for the period between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2104, the Engineering Division issued 591
engineering permits, for total permit fees of $93,285.44. They also performed 1094 inspections, for total inspection fees of
$124,815.82. In addition, they completed an estimated 1,200 reviews of plans.
Ms. Hope provided a map identifying the location of key development projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that the
Development Services Department currently has a total of 544 active issued building permits. These building permits are
typically issued early in the year and take time to progress through. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on
most of them. Mr. Chave specifically noted the following:
There are currently 52 active new single-family residence permits. This is a significant increase, and one
particularly large project is a 27-lot subdivision in the southwest part of the City that is starting to develop.
Swedish Edmonds Hospital recently completed its three-story parking garage. This was an $8.4 million project with
over 108,000 square feet of space. They are currently working on an expansion that will add a 94,000 square foot,
state-of-the-art facility valued at about $28 million. This project was not reflected in the numbers provided earlier.
Clearing and excavating work is currently taking place for a new mixed-use building in the downtown that will
include a somewhat down-sized post office. The project will provide 94,256 square feet of space, with 43
residential units, the post office, and retail space. The project is valued at $7.2 million.
The Community Health Clinic is a new 24,750 facility that houses a medical and dental clinic. The project was
completed in July of 2014 and is valued at $2.6 million.
The Salish Crossing Project will be a complete remodel of the “old Safeway site” into five new tenant spaces and a
museum within the existing building. Parking lot and pedestrian improvements are also proposed as part of the
project.
The Jacobsen’s Marine Project will create a new 10,120 square foot marine service building valued at $810,000 on
Port of Edmonds property. This will be a big deal in terms of retail sales, as the company is a significant seller of
boats and marine supplies.
Prestige Care is developing a new 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue West. The project is
valued at $6.9 million. The new building will replace the existing facility.
Excavation work is going on now for the 5th Avenue Animal Hospital, which will be a 10,562 square foot veterinary
clinic that is valued at $891,000. The new building will help fill the gap between the strong retail uses on the south
end of 5th Avenue and the downtown retail area.
The City is transitioning to new technology, particularly on-line permit applications and digital permit reviews.
Chair Cloutier thanked Ms. Holt and Mr. Chave for the report, which he found to be enlightening and helped him understand
the big projects that are occurring in the City.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not review their extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cloutier thanked the Board Members for enduring a long meeting. There was a lot on their plate and the issues are
important. He also thanked Vice Chair Tibbott for presenting the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council.
Packet Page 265 of 468
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 13
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed being able to download the meeting packet. Mr. Chave explained that he will
work with the City Clerk to learn how to in bed page numbers into the documents so they are easier for the Board to use.
Board Member Stewart referred to the two links to videos that were forwarded to Board Members by Ms. Hope. The first
video is general about the value of comprehensive plans and important issues to consider when updating them. The second
video is called “Planning Roles and Citizen Participation.” She said she reviewed both videos, and she encouraged the other
Board Members, as well as City Council Members, to do the same. She particularly recommended the second video, which
shows some striking parallels to not only the Planning Board’s role, but how they interact with the City Council.
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board of the tour of the marsh and Shoreline that is scheduled for October 4th from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O’Connell and a representative from the Tribes. Participants
should meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. She explained that the tour is part of her citizen project called
“Students Saving Salmon.” In addition to the students, members of the Planning Board, City Council and Mayor’s Climate
Protection Committee are invited to attend.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that if the City is expected to accommodate an additional 5,000 residents before 2035, this
equates to about 250 addition people per year. If this number is divided by the average household size of just over two, the
number of new units needed each year is 125. This year the City added just 33 new single-family residential homes and no
duplexes or multi-family units. Mr. Chave clarified that the post office project will provide an additional 43 multi-family
residential units for a total of about 76 new residential units. It is likely the number will grow before the end of the year. The
best report to look at will be the year-end report that captures all the projects that were completed in 2014. He suspects the
final number will be about 100, which is a good year for the City.
Vice Chair Tibbott provided a brief review of the quarterly report he presented to the City Council on behalf of the Board.
He reported that several City Council Members said they read the Board’s comments and recommendations and they
appreciated their work. One City Council Member was somewhat critical of the one meeting the Board held when there was
not a quorum of members, yet they reported information that was put together that evening. He didn’t go into the details
about the nature of the meeting, but the City Council Member expressed concern that it seemed like the Board was pushing
forward an agenda that neither the City Council nor the City staff was ready for. Mr. Chave clarified that there was some
confusion about the timeline. The City Council had actually talked about the Highway 99 stuff at their retreat before the
Board met with the Highway 99 Task Force. The Board’s discussion was a follow up to the points made by the City Council.
He did not feel the Board was out in front of the City Council in this situation.
Board Member Lovell asked if any progress has been made to fill the vacant Planning Board position. Mr. Chave answered
that Mayor Earling is in the process of interviewing four candidates.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Packet Page 266 of 468
Date Hours Funds Purpose Materials
12‐Sep 4 3,400.00$ Fogging of Sunset/project start Engineering
13‐Sep 0
14‐Sep 0
15‐Sep 36 726.88$ swept /layout and paint materials from stock
16‐Sep 27 1,005.96$ paint/HC stalls/x‐walks materials from stock
17‐Sep 35 685.44$ install curb stops Cuz Concrete
18‐Sep 42 370.00$ prep for sidewalk pave 20yrds crush Stock
19‐Sep 7 77.78$ adjust m/h in sidewalk materials from stock
20‐Sep 0
21‐Sep 0
22‐Sep 27 148.00$ prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush Stock
23‐Sep 27 1,388.13$ pave walkway 18 ton Cemex
24‐Sep 18 148.00$ prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush Stock
25‐Sep 36 845.45$ pave walkway 11 ton Cemex
26‐Sep 6 prep curb for paint
27‐Sep
28‐Sep 0
29‐Sep 18 170.34$ paint yellow curb materials from stock
30‐Sep 0 55.50$ prep ramps 3y rock from stock
30‐Sep 27 386.32$ prep and pave ramps 5ton Cemex
Sept Totals 310 9,407.80$
1‐Oct 18 37.00$ form bench pads 2 yrds crush Stock
2‐Oct 24 261.43$ pour bench pads 2.5yrds Cemex
3‐Oct 2 break down forms
4‐Oct 0
5‐Oct 0
6‐Oct 9 70.00$ hot tape stock material
6‐Oct 0 92.85$ black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint
6‐Oct 36 3,236.52$ hot tape/spread chips Ennis Flint
7‐Oct 23 92.85$ black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint
8‐Oct 6 140.00$ pave around benches Cemex / Partial Cost
9‐Oct 0
10‐Oct 0
11‐Oct 0
12‐Oct 0
13‐Oct 0
14‐Oct 0
15‐Oct 18 spread wood chips free chips
17‐Oct 0 500.00$ fuel estimate
18‐Oct 0
19‐Oct 0
20‐Oct 0
21‐Oct 0
22‐Oct 27 3,925.58$ assist parks with plantings plants
23‐Oct 107 Parks department hours to date
24‐Oct 0
25‐Oct 0
26‐Oct 0
27‐Oct 0
28‐Oct 0
29‐Oct 0
30‐Oct 0
31‐Oct 0
Oct Totals 270 8,356.23$
Project Totals 575 17,764.03$
Sunset Walkway Public Works Cost Estimates
Packet Page 267 of 468
Packet Page 268 of 468
Packet Page 269 of 468
Packet Page 270 of 468
Packet Page 271 of 468
Packet Page 272 of 468
Packet Page 273 of 468
Packet Page 274 of 468
Packet Page 275 of 468
Packet Page 276 of 468
Packet Page 277 of 468
Packet Page 278 of 468
SUNSET WALKWAY PROJECT
PRE-ENGINEERING AND RCO GRANT APPLICATION
(Prior to 2013)
No. Item Cost
1 DHA, Inc. $2,965
2 Parametrix $26,661
3 BNSF $600
4 Staff Time $3,246
Total =$33,472
DESIGN
(2013-to date)
No. Item Cost
1 MacLeod Reckord $83,297
2 Post Cards $86
3 Daily Journal of Commerce $372
4 Everett Herald $172
5 Public Records Requests $656
6 Staff Time $25,148
Total = $109,731
Packet Page 279 of 468
Prepared by: C. Reckord 8/26/2013
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEM
EST
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
PREPARATION
1 MOBILIZATION (10%)1 L.S.$92,498 $92,498
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 L.S.$10,000 $10,000
3 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB 2,219 L.F.$8 $17,752
4 REMOVE ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT 4,134 S.Y.$10 $41,342
5 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL 2,756 C.Y.$12.00 $33,074
6 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2,067 TN.$15.00 $31,007
SURFACING
7 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - CONCRETE UNDERLAY 878 TN.$22.00 $19,321
8 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - HMA UNDERLAY 508 TN.$22.00 $11,183
9 VACANT
10 NEW HMA 254 TN.$125.00 $31,771
STORM SEWER
11 FILTERRA 6 EA $15,000 $90,000
12 CATCH BASIN TYPE I 8 EA $1,200 $9,600
13 CATCH BASIN TYPE II 3 EA $2,500 $7,500
14 STORM SEWER (12" PVC)2,200 LF $22 $48,400
15 ADJUST MANHOLE 8 EA $500 $4,000
EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING
16 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1 L.S.$8,000 $8,000
17 TESC PLAN 1 L.S.$2,500 $2,500
18 PLANT BED AREA (PSIPE 1 YEAR)1,393 S.Y.$50 $69,650
19 TOPSOIL 18" DEPTH 697 C.Y.$35 $24,378
TRAFFIC
20 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S.$40,000 $40,000
21 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 2,219 L.F.$18 $39,942
22 SIGNING AND STRIPING 1 L.S.$15,000 $15,000
23 WHEEL STOPS 26 EA.$250 $6,500
24 SPEED TABLE CROSSINGS 1 EA.$16,000 $16,000
OTHER ITEMS
25 INTERPRETIVE SIGNS 3 EA.$2,000 $6,000
26 ENTRANCE SIGNS 2 EA.$2,500 $5,000
27 BENCHES 5 EA.$2,000 $10,000
28 PICNIC TABLES 4 EA.$2,000 $8,000
29 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 10' - 12' WIDE 2,635 S.Y.$45 $118,560
30 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP 6 EA.$6,000 $36,000
31 DECORATIVE GUARD RAIL 1,550 L.F.$90 $139,500
32 VIEWING AREAS 1 EA.$25,000 $25,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,017,477
CONTINGENCY (30%)$305,243
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,322,720
OTHER COSTS
22 SURVEY 1 L.S.$28,000 $28,000
23 GEOTECHNICAL 1 L.S.$23,000 $23,000
24 DESIGN, PUBLIC OUTREACH & PERMITTING (18%)1 L.S.$238,090 $238,090
25 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)1 L.S.$198,408 $198,408
26 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMIN (5%)1 L.S.$66,136 $66,136
27 $0
SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS $553,634
GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,876,354
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CITY OF EDMONDS - SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK TRAIL
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
7/23/2014 1 MacLeod Reckord
Packet Page 280 of 468
AM-7257 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Development Code Amendment for CG Zones in Highway 99 Area and Potential Action
Recommendation
Take action on the CG Ordinance by adopting either the Original Ordinance (Exhibit 2) or the Revised
Ordinance (Exhibit 5).
To accomplish this, the following steps are suggested:
1. “Take from the table” the motion from October 7 to approve the Ordinance amending Chapter 16.60 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code. (This requires a motion, second, and vote.)
2. Make any motion(s) to amend the original ordinance, voting on each proposed amendment.
3. Vote on the ordinance (with any approved amendments).
A possible alternative to Step 2 above is to for the majority to vote “no” on the Original Ordinance, then
introduce and vote on the attached Revised Ordinance (Exhibit 5).
Previous Council Action
On September 16, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation
for amending the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.60 – CG zone, as it relates to the
Highway 99 commercial area. No one testified at the public hearing. The hearing closed and the City
Council discussed the recommendation and provided direction on several items so that an ordinance
could be drafted for consideration at the next opportunity. (See Exhibit 1, September 16 minutes,
attached.)
Subsequently, an ordinance was drafted to reflect the September 16 direction, including a one-year sunset
clause. (See Exhibit 2, Original Ordinance.) On October 7, Councilmember Johnson moved to approve
the Ordinance and the motion was seconded. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, who had not been present
at the September 16 meeting, stated she would be proposing several amendments to the Ordinance.
Councilmember Petso moved to table the item until the proposed amendments could be reviewed in
writing. (See Exhibit 3, October 7 minutes.)
Narrative
NEW MATERIALS
Packet Page 281 of 468
NEW MATERIALS
A written copy of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’s proposed amendments the Original
Ordinance amending Chapter 16.60 ECDC is attached. (See Exhibit 4, List of Amendments.) A revised
Ordinance has since been prepared to show—in tracked changes—how the amendments would read
when incorporated into the Original Ordinance. (See Exhibit 5, Revised Ordinance.)
The proposed amendments and Revised Ordinance are closer to the Planning Board’s previous
recommendation. They would allow development in the CG zones to have non-commercial uses (as
recommended by the Board) but instead of the tiered parking rate (which includes 1 space per 600 square
feet of commercial building space for some locations and 1 space per 400 square feet of commercial
building space for other locations) as recommended by the Planning Board, they would establish one flat
minimum rate (of 1 parking space per 400 square feet of commercial building space and application of
the RM zone parking requirements for all residential uses). Also, Instead of the automatic sunset clause
added by the City Council as part of its September 16 discussion—which would automatically cause the
existing zoning requirements to go back into effect for the CG zone after one year, the Revised
Ordinance has a one-year reporting requirement. The reporting requirement is for information to be
provided to the City Council about how the uses and parking within the CG zoning district are working.
It could serve as a basis for the Council to keep or change the CG development code requirements.
CURRENT STATUS
For November 3, the City Council’s agenda includes potential action on amending the General
Commercial (CG) zoning chapter of the development code. Because consideration of this topic had been
tabled on October 7 to allow review of the proposed amendments, the Council must now “un-table”
consideration of the topic to be able to proceed. This should be done by a motion and vote. (See
“Recommendation” section of this memo.)
After the topic has been “taken off the table,” the Council may proceed with discussion or action and may
vote on approving any amendments to the original Ordinance (Exhibit 2), followed by a vote on the
Ordinance, with any approved amendments.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Sept. 16 Minutes
Exhibit 2: Original Ordinance
Exhibit 3 Oct. 7 Minutes
Exhibit 4: List of Amendments
Exhibit 5: Revised Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2014 07:20 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2014 09:11 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:14 AM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 10/30/2014 01:48 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 282 of 468
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 283 of 468
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 284 of 468
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 285 of 468
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 286 of 468
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 287 of 468
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 288 of 468
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 289 of 468
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; ESTABLISHING A SUNSET PROVISION;
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 290 of 468
Section 2. Sunset Provision. This ordinance shall be in effect for one year from the
effective date described herein. On the one year anniversary of the effective date it shall cease to
have effect.
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 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 291 of 468
3
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
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE
SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS
WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS; ESTABLISHING A
SUNSET PROVISION; 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 292 of 468
1 | Page 2014.06.11
ATTACHMENT A 2
Chapter 16.60 4
CG – GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES
Sections: 6
16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones.
16.60.005 Purposes. 8
16.60.010 Uses.
16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 10
16.60.020 Site development standards – General.
16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 12
16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
16.60.000 14
CG and CG2 zones.
This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two dis-16
tinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided
for in ECDC 16.60.020(A). [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 18
16.60.005
Purposes. 20
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: 22
A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high
economic benefit to the city. Mixed-use and transit-oriented developments are 24
encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall
mixed development scheme. 26
B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern
that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to 28
support business and economic development.
C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 30
corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather
than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development 32
should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians
and patrons. 34
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 36
designated in the comprehensive plan, the zoning should encourage mixed-use or taller
high-rise development to occur. 38
E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect resi-
dential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian 40
connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to
appropriate retail and service uses. 42
Packet Page 293 of 468
2 | Page 2014.06.11
F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent 2
possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the
overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins 4
residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses)
and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned 6
properties.
G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish 8
uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for
business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. 10
Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and
landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – 12
public investment.
H. Within the corridor, high-rise nodes designated in the comprehensive plan should 14
provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should
be: 16
1. Supported by adequate services and facilities;
2. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of 18
distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar
techniques; 20
3. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile,
transit and pedestrian access; 22
4. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential
neighborhoods. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 24
16.60.010
Uses. 26
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifi-28
cally prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this
section; 30
2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this sec-
tion or limited by subsection (D) of this section; 32
3. Halfway houses;
4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set 34
forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC,
and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. 36
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 38
2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted
primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or 40
building supply sales, or garden/nursery sales. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall
be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone 42
contained in this chapter.
C. Prohibited Uses. 44
Packet Page 294 of 468
3 | Page 2014.06.11
1. Residential uses located within the first or second story of any structure in areas 2
designated “Highway 99 Corridor” or “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map.
There are two exceptions to this prohibition: 4
a. Residential uses may be allowed as part of large-scale mixed-use
developments, as described in ECDC 16.60.020(B); and 6
b. Residential uses are allowed on the second floor of buildings that are not
located in areas designated as “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map and 8
which are not located on lots that have frontage on Highway 99.
21. Mobile home parks. 10
32. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not
secondary to a permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk 12
yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this
type of prohibited use. 14
D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16
16.60.015
Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 18
All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the
development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The 20
standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the
following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or 22
other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or
educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for 24
educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar
facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) 26
nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health-related
purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by 28
the Motion Picture Association of America.
A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to 30
locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are
met: 32
1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the
following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the 34
city limits:
a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; 36
b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC.
2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the 38
following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city
limits: 40
a. A public park;
b. A public library; 42
c. A nursery school or preschool;
d. A public or private primary or secondary school; 44
e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily
for religious worship; and 46
Packet Page 295 of 468
4 | Page 2014.06.11
f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, 2
public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children
and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; 4
g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone;
h. A museum; and 6
i. A public hospital or hospital district.
3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or 8
tavern within or outside the city limits.
B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a 10
straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection
(A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use 12
specified in subsection (A) of this section, to the nearest physical point of the tenant
space occupied by a sexually oriented business. 14
C. Variance From Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the sep-
aration requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that 16
the following criteria are met:
1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation 18
between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of
visibility and access; 20
2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of
the community development code; 22
3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent
and surrounding land uses; 24
4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented
business; and 26
5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse sec-
ondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. 28
D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses.
The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business 30
once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section.
[Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 32
16.60.020
Site development standards – General. 34
A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as
follows: 36
Minimum
Lot Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side/Rear
Setback
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Floor
Area
CG None None 42 None1 603 None
CG2 None None 4 2 None1 753 None
38
Packet Page 296 of 468
5 | Page 2014.06.11
1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by 2
any other provision of this code.
2 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 4
3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map.
B. Mixed-Use Developments. 6
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 8
the following requirements:
a. The proposed development’s combined site area is at least two acres. 10
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 12
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. 14
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 16
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 18
commercial uses facing service drives, alleys, or other minor access easements that are
not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. 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 297 of 468
6 | Page 2014.06.11
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
2. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets.
3. Paths within Parking Lots. 28
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 30
textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers.
b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within 32
parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on-site buildings as well as
pedestrian walkways that border the development. 34
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 36
planting on the second side.
d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a mini-38
mum of every 100 feet.
4. Bonus for Parking Below Grade. 40
a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below grade or under
the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the parking that is 42
provided below grade or under-building:
i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. 44
ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent.
Packet Page 298 of 468
7 | Page 2014.06.11
iii. A mixture of full- and reduced-width parking stalls may be provided 2
without meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could be
provided at full-width dimensions. 4
5. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food,
drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: 6
a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the
facades of the building that face a street. 8
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 10
separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the
drive-through shall be internal to the site. 12
6. Pedestrian and Transit Access.
a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to 14
adjacent developments if feasible.
b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to 16
existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be
identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking 18
in the parking or access areas.
c. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, 20
pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are
required. 22
C. Site Design and Layout.
1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, 24
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, 26
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 28
the site:
a. Building massing and unit layout, 30
b. Placement of structures and setbacks,
c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities, 32
d. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings,
e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, 34
f. Types of building materials and/or elements,
g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 36
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 38
identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership:
a. Individual entry design for each building. 40
b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking,
open spaces, and the street. 42
c. Create variety through facade materials and organization.
d. Create variety through roof forms. 44
e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and
appearance. 46
3. Lighting.
Packet Page 299 of 468
8 | Page 2014.06.11
a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This 2
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. 4
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. 6
d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the build-
ing/canopy. 8
D. Building Design and Massing.
1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct “base” and “top.” A “base” and “top” 10
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, 12
storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using
architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 14
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 16
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 18
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 20
ground floor of street-front facades in pedestrian-oriented zones or districts.
3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: 22
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 24
zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables,
planters and other elements. 26
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 28
designed to be compatible with the historic structure.
4. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting 30
streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from
residentially zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating 32
at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade:
a. Masonry (except for flat 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. Projecting metal canopy. 38
f. Decorative tilework.
g. Trellis containing planting. 40
h. Medallions.
i. Artwork or wall graphics. 42
j. Vertical differentiation.
k. Lighting fixtures. 44
l. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent.
[Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 46
Packet Page 300 of 468
9 | Page 2014.06.11
16.60.040 2
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely 4
enclosed building, except the following:
1. Public utilities; 6
2. Off-street parking and loading areas;
3. Drive-in business; 8
4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B);
5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 10
ECDC;
6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential 12
zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building;
7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 14
8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of
Chapter 4.12 ECC. 16
B. Interim Use Status – Public Markets.
1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market 18
within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a
temporary use. As a temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures 20
used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is uti-
lized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not 22
decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards
established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 24
3635 § 1, 2007].
Packet Page 301 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 18
Mayor Earling advised his message and the budget will be available on the City’s website tomorrow;
copies of the budget will be distributed to Council tonight. He looked forward to further discussions
regarding the budget.
13. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014
BUDGET
Finance Director Scott James reviewed the third quarter budget amendment:
• Six decision packages
• Four decision packages have been previously discussed by Council
• Two decision packages are new for Council consideration
• $59,315 in new revenues to pay toward $105,942 in new expenditures
• Ending fund balance decreases by $46,627
He displayed Exhibit D, Specific Accounts Amended for Decision Packages on pages 9 and 10. He
reviewed Exhibit E, Balance Amendment Summary:
Fund Number 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)
He reviewed the budget amendments:
• New Items
o Police Officers contract settled
o Temporary Finance employee to provide coverage during Accounting Supervisor’s maternity
leave
• Items previously discussed:
o Add to funds allocated in 2014 for Police Department video security monitoring system to
allow expansion of the system to the Court, Public Works yard and WWTP
o Closeout on SR 99 International District Enhancements
o Treatment plant outfall emergency repair
o Equipment Maintenance overtime
He displayed Exhibit A: Budget Amendment Summary, Exhibit B: Budget Amendments by Revenue,
and Exhibit C: Budget Amendments by Expenditure.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY PETERSON, TO APPROVE
ORDINANCE NO. 3979, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3973 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR CG
ZONES IN HIGHWAY 99 AREA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this ordinance was drafted following Council action. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday distributed a revised version of the ordinance that adds a sunset provision in Section 2 that
Packet Page 302 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 19
reads, “This ordinance shall be in effect for one year from the effective date described herein. On the one
year anniversary of the effective date it shall cease to have effect.”
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3980, 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.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she was absent when this issue was discussed and was unable to
participate. She has been working on issues related to Highway 99 for the past three years and has several
amendments to propose that will address commercial and parking requirements in the code language. If
the amendments are approved, she will propose corresponding changes to the ordinance title and whereas
sections.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND 16.60.020 OF ATTACHMENT A BY DELETING SUBSECTION B,
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADDING A NEW SECTION B, TO
READ, “REPORTING. THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE A
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 TO SUMMARIZE THE 2015
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CG AND CG2 DISTRICTS IN THE HIGHWAY 99
AREA, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE LAND USES AND VEHICLE PARKING. THE
REPORT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW LAND USE AND
PARKING ASPECTS OF THIS CHAPTER ARE WORKING.”
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she did not feel a sunset date was sufficient and recommended
a more in-depth review. Further, if the sunset date was not monitored, the code would revert back to the
old zoning code. She was uncertain why a sunset date was being imposed when most zoning changes did
not have a sunset date.
Councilmember Petso suggested tabling this matter and allowing Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to
provide her proposed amendments in writing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will distribute her proposed amendments to the Council.
15. CONTRACT DISCUSSION (AND/OR RENEWAL) WITH LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
(LIGHTHOUSE)
Council President Buckshnis recalled when this issue was discussed in June, the Council decided to draft
procedures and a process to evaluate the City Attorney services. The evaluation was created, a process
was agreed upon and the evaluation was provided to Councilmembers, the Mayor and Directors. Written
evaluations were received from Councilmembers and the numeric evaluations very favorable. The
administration did not follow the process and a verbal evaluation was conducted with Mayor Earling, Mr.
Taraday, past Council President Councilmember Petso and herself. Since the process not followed
correctly, it will have to be reevaluated. The evaluation is a separate issue to be addressed next year. The
evaluations were very favorable; concerns expressed by the Mayor and Directors were addressed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO RENEW THE CONTRACT WITH LIGHTHOUSE.
Packet Page 303 of 468
1
List of Amendments
For Highway 99 Zoning Code Ordinance
For October 7 meeting
Move to amend 16.60.020 of Attachment A by deleting subsection B (“Mixed Use Developments”) in its
entirety and adding a new subsection B to read: “B. Reporting. The Development Services Director shall
provide a report to the City Council by February 1, 2016, to summarize 2015 development activities for
the CG and CG2 districts in the Highway 99 area, especially related to land uses and vehicle parking. The
report is intended to provide information about how land use and parking aspects of this chapter are
working.”
Move to amend 16.60.030.B of Attachment A by removing the language of subsection 1 and inserting it
as the first sentence of subsection 2 and adding a new subsection 1 that reads: “Parking shall be
provided as follows: (a) for non-residential uses, 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of leaseable building space; and
(b) for non-residential uses, as required for RM zones.
Move to further amend 16.60.030 of Attachment A to reflect the Planning Board recommendation by
adding a new sentence to the end of subsection B.1 that reads: “As an alternative to using the parking
ratio in this subsection, a project-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 approved by the City as a Type 2 decision if the study demonstrates that appropriate examples
or studies for similar developments show that anticipated parking demand can be accommodated on-
site.”
Move to amend 16.60.030.B.4 of Attachment A to reflect the Planning Board’s recommendation by
replacing the phrase “Bonus for Parking Below Grade” with the phrase “Bonus for Parking Below or
Above Ground Floor” and amending the language in the same subsection that currently reads “a. For
projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below grade or under the building, the following
code requirements may be modified for the parking that is below grade or under-building” so that it is
replaced by language that reads: “a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or
above the ground floor of the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the
parking that is provided”.
Move to amend the ordinance title by deleting the phrase “TO REMOVE SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL
REQUIREMENTS” and replacing it with the phrase “TO MODIFY USE REQUIREMENTS AND STREAMLINE
PARKING STANDARDS”.
Move to add language to the fourth “WHEREAS” recital on page 1 of the draft ordinance, so that the
amended “WHEREAS” recital reads: “WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Chapter 16.60
ECDC shall be amended to reflect the Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding uses and some
of the Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding parking;”
Packet Page 304 of 468
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.60 TO AMEND USE
REQUIREMENTS AND TO REMOVE SECOND STORY
COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS MODIFY PARKING
STANDARDS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS;
ESTABLISHING A SUNSET PROVISION; 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 and some of the
Planning Board’s recommended changes regarding parking;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES
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 305 of 468
Section 2. Sunset Provision. This ordinance shall be in effect for one year from the
effective date described herein. On the one year anniversary of the effective date it shall cease to
have effect.
Section 32. 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 43. 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:
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 306 of 468
3
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
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE
SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL
REQUIREMENTSAND TO MODIFY PARKING
STANDARDS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS;
ESTABLISHING A SUNSET PROVISION; 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 307 of 468
1 | Page 2014.06.11
ATTACHMENT A 2
Chapter 16.60 4
CG – GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES
Sections: 6
16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones.
16.60.005 Purposes. 8
16.60.010 Uses.
16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 10
16.60.020 Site development standards – General.
16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 12
16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
16.60.000 14
CG and CG2 zones.
This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two dis-16
tinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided
for in ECDC 16.60.020(A). [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 18
16.60.005
Purposes. 20
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: 22
A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high
economic benefit to the city. Mixed-use and transit-oriented developments are 24
encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall
mixed development scheme. 26
B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern
that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to 28
support business and economic development.
C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 30
corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather
than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development 32
should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians
and patrons. 34
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 36
designated in the comprehensive plan, the zoning should encourage mixed-use or taller
high-rise development to occur. 38
E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect resi-
dential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian 40
connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to
appropriate retail and service uses. 42
Packet Page 308 of 468
2 | Page 2014.06.11
F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent 2
possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the
overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins 4
residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses)
and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned 6
properties.
G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish 8
uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for
business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. 10
Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and
landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – 12
public investment.
H. Within the corridor, high-rise nodes designated in the comprehensive plan should 14
provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should
be: 16
1. Supported by adequate services and facilities;
2. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of 18
distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar
techniques; 20
3. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile,
transit and pedestrian access; 22
4. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential
neighborhoods. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 24
16.60.010
Uses. 26
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifi-28
cally prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this
section; 30
2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this sec-
tion or limited by subsection (D) of this section; 32
3. Halfway houses;
4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set 34
forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC,
and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. 36
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 38
2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted
primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or 40
building supply sales, or garden/nursery sales. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall
be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone 42
contained in this chapter.
C. Prohibited Uses. 44
Packet Page 309 of 468
3 | Page 2014.06.11
1. Residential uses located within the first or second story of any structure in areas 2
designated “Highway 99 Corridor” or “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map.
There are two exceptions to this prohibition: 4
a. Residential uses may be allowed as part of large-scale mixed-use
developments, as described in ECDC 16.60.020(B); and 6
b. Residential uses are allowed on the second floor of buildings that are not
located in areas designated as “High-Rise Node” on the comprehensive plan map and 8
which are not located on lots that have frontage on Highway 99.
21. Mobile home parks. 10
32. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not
secondary to a permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk 12
yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this
type of prohibited use. 14
D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16
16.60.015
Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 18
All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the
development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The 20
standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the
following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or 22
other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or
educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for 24
educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar
facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) 26
nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health-related
purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by 28
the Motion Picture Association of America.
A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to 30
locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are
met: 32
1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the
following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the 34
city limits:
a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; 36
b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC.
2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the 38
following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city
limits: 40
a. A public park;
b. A public library; 42
c. A nursery school or preschool;
d. A public or private primary or secondary school; 44
e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily
for religious worship; and 46
Packet Page 310 of 468
4 | Page 2014.06.11
f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, 2
public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children
and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; 4
g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone;
h. A museum; and 6
i. A public hospital or hospital district.
3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or 8
tavern within or outside the city limits.
B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a 10
straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection
(A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use 12
specified in subsection (A) of this section, to the nearest physical point of the tenant
space occupied by a sexually oriented business. 14
C. Variance From Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the sep-
aration requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that 16
the following criteria are met:
1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation 18
between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of
visibility and access; 20
2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of
the community development code; 22
3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent
and surrounding land uses; 24
4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented
business; and 26
5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse sec-
ondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. 28
D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses.
The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business 30
once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section.
[Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 32
16.60.020
Site development standards – General. 34
A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as
follows: 36
Minimum
Lot Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side/Rear
Setback
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Floor
Area
CG None None 42 None1 603 None
CG2 None None 4 2 None1 753 None
38
Packet Page 311 of 468
5 | Page 2014.06.11
1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by 2
any other provision of this code.
2 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 4
3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map.
B. Mixed-Use DevelopmentsReporting. 6
The Development Services Director shall provide a report to the City Council by
February 1, 2016, to summarize 2015 development activities for the CG and CG2 8
districts in the Highway 99 area, especially related to land uses and vehicle parking. The
report is intended to provide information about how land use and parking aspects of this 10
chapter are 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 12
meeting the following requirements:
a. The proposed development’s combined site area is at least two acres. 14
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 16
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. 18
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 20
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 22
commercial uses facing service drives, alleys, or other minor access easements that are
not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. 24
16.60.030
Site development standards – Design standards. 26
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 28
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 30
or CG2 zone must meet the design standards contained in this section.
A. Screening and Buffering. 32
1. General.
a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights-of-way shall not 34
exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required
between stepped wall segments. 36
b. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building
setback. 38
c. Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow
visibility to signage and building entry. 40
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 42
water quality elements.
e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. 44
Packet Page 312 of 468
6 | Page 2014.06.11
f. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses 2
adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet
in width and continuous in length. 4
g. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-
family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in 6
length.
h. Type I landscaping is required for office and multifamily projects adjacent to 8
single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in
height and continuous in length. 10
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 12
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 14
single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical
elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. 16
j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single-
family zones. 18
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. 20
2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets.
a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street 22
frontages.
b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the 24
public street by one of the following methods:
i. Walls, 26
ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque,
iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque, or 28
iv. Type III landscaping.
B. Access and Parking. 30
1. Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for non-residential uses, 1 space per
400 sq. ft. of leaseable building space; and (b) for non-residential uses, as required for 32
RM zones.
Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between 34
the building’s front facade and the primary street.
2. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between 36
the building’s front façade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on
corner locations adjacent to public streets. 38
3. Paths within Parking Lots.
a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved 40
routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in
textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers. 42
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 44
pedestrian walkways that border the development.
Packet Page 313 of 468
7 | Page 2014.06.11
c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on 2
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. 4
d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a mini-
mum of every 100 feet. 6
4. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground FloorGrade.
a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the 8
ground floor of the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the
parking that is providedFor projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below 10
grade or under the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the
parking that is provided below grade or under-building: 12
i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet.
ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. 14
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 16
provided at full-width dimensions.
5. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, 18
drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following:
a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the 20
facades of the building that face a street.
b. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off-site. 22
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 24
drive-through shall be internal to the site.
6. Pedestrian and Transit Access. 26
a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to
adjacent developments if feasible. 28
b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to
existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be 30
identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking
in the parking or access areas. 32
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 34
required.
C. Site Design and Layout. 36
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 38
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 40
project shall demonstrate how at least five of the elements were used to vary the design of
the site: 42
a. Building massing and unit layout,
b. Placement of structures and setbacks, 44
c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities,
d. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, 46
e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees,
Packet Page 314 of 468
8 | Page 2014.06.11
f. Types of building materials and/or elements, 2
g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials.
2. Individuality for Particular Structures. If a project contains several new or old 4
buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create
identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: 6
a. Individual entry design for each building.
b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, 8
open spaces, and the street.
c. Create variety through facade materials and organization. 10
d. Create variety through roof forms.
e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and 12
appearance.
3. Lighting. 14
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. 16
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 18
height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred.
d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the build-20
ing/canopy.
D. Building Design and Massing. 22
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, 24
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 26
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 28
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, 30
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, 32
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. 34
3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by:
a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space which may substitute for a 36
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, 38
planters and other elements.
b. Retaining or reusing an historic structure listed on the National Register or the 40
Edmonds register of historic places. Any addition or new building on the site must be
designed to be compatible with the historic structure. 42
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 44
residentially zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating
at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: 46
a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block).
Packet Page 315 of 468
9 | Page 2014.06.11
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. 2
c. Belt courses of a different texture and color.
d. Projecting cornice. 4
e. Projecting metal canopy.
f. Decorative tilework. 6
g. Trellis containing planting.
h. Medallions. 8
i. Artwork or wall graphics.
j. Vertical differentiation. 10
k. Lighting fixtures.
l. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. 12
[Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
16.60.040 14
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely 16
enclosed building, except the following:
1. Public utilities; 18
2. Off-street parking and loading areas;
3. Drive-in business; 20
4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B);
5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 22
ECDC;
6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential 24
zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building;
7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 26
8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of
Chapter 4.12 ECC. 28
B. Interim Use Status – Public Markets.
1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market 30
within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a
temporary use. As a temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures 32
used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is uti-
lized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not 34
decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards
established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 36
3635 § 1, 2007].
Packet Page 316 of 468
AM-7255 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Potential action 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.
Recommendation
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) adopting the zoning amendments and rezone action.
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.
Most recently, the Council held a second public hearing on October 7 2014. Prior meetings also included
a briefing on the Planning Board's recommendations on July 22, 2014.
Narrative
The City Council held a second public hearing on the Westgate zoning code amendments and rezone
proposal on October 7, 2014. Discussion and potential final action on the Westgate proposals was
continued to this meeting (November 3, 2014).
An ordinance has been prepared which would adopt the new zoning provisions (Title 16.110 WMU -
Westgate Mixed Use Zone District, and Title 22.110 Design Standards for the WMU zone) and rezone
the Westgate commercial properties to the new WMU zone.
The only change in the proposed code from the October 7, 2014, public hearing draft is a proposed new
section 16.110.025 (page 9 of Exhibit 1, which is page 4 of Title 16.110). This section would codify the
current planting/sidewalk standards that have recently been employed in the Westgate area -- specifically
as part of the new Walgreens development. This change would solidify the City's intent to consistently
apply these standards throughout the Westgate area.
Packet Page 317 of 468
Exhibit 2 is the same underline/strikeout version of the code which was part of the October 7, 2014,
hearing agenda packet, showing the addition of the new section 16.110.025 language.
Exhibit 3 contains the Council minutes from the October 7, 2014, public hearing.
Exhibit 4 is a new letter received from Henbart LLC (Bartell's) expanding on their support of the 12-foot
setbacks along SR-104 and 100th Ave W.
Rather than include all of the public hearing materials from October 7th, if anyone wishes to refer to the
materials they are still available as part of that agenda item. The October 7th Exhibits include the
following items:
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
Staff looks forward to concluding the Westgate project.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Draft Westgate ordinance with exhibits
Exhibit 2: WMU Zoning draft code showing edits
Exhibit 3: Council minutes from 10/7/2014
Exhibit 4: Henbart Letter of 10/27/2014
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Development Services Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:35 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:35 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2014 09:40 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 09:45 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/30/2014 12:59 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 318 of 468
Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014
Packet Page 319 of 468
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 16.110 WMU – WESTGATE
MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT, AND 22.110 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR THE WMU – WESTGATE MIXED USE
ZONE DISTRICT, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO
WMU, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Westgate zoning
text and map amendments March 12, 2014, a work/review session on May 14, 2014, and another
public hearing on May 28, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, the Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend
adoption of the proposed Westgate zoning text amendments, with certain amendments, to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, the Planning Board also voted 5-0 to recommend
adoption of the Westgate zoning map amendment; and
WHEREAS, this proposal constitutes an area-wide rezone due to the size of the
affected area and the number of different parcels and ownerships involved; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014 and October 7, 2014, the City Council held public
hearings on the proposed Westgate zoning amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 20.40.010, at least the following factors shall be
considered in reviewing a proposed rezone:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the
comprehensive plan;
Packet Page 320 of 468
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone
district;
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the
existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property;
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the
immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone;
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for
the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be
the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and
parcels elsewhere with the same zoning;
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to
the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds, after considering the above factors, that the
proposal should be approved; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new chapter 16.110, entitled “WMU – WESTGATE MIXED USE
ZONE DISTRICT,” is hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as
set forth in Exhibit 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth in full.
Section 2. A new chapter 22.110, entitled “DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE
WMU – WESTGATE MIXED USE DISTRICT,” is hereby added to the Edmonds Community
Packet Page 321 of 468
Development Code to read as set forth in Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 3. That certain real property depicted on Exhibit 3, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, is hereby rezoned to
Westgate Mixed Use (WMU).
Section 4. The Development Services Director or her designee is hereby
authorized and directed to make appropriate amendments to the Edmonds Zoning Map in order
to properly designate the rezoned property as “WMU” pursuant to Section 3 of this ordinance.
Section 5. 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
chapter.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
Packet Page 322 of 468
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 323 of 468
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, ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTING
NEW CHAPTERS 16.110 WMU – WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT, AND 22.110
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE WMU – WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT,
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO WMU, 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 324 of 468
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 Purposes. 12
The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone has the following specific purposes in addition to
the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in chapter 16.40 ECDC: 14
A. Encourage mixed-use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction
with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and 16
open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a
desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the 18
larger Westgate District with a distinctive character.
B. Create mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, 20
attractive and community-friendly.
C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. 22
D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings.
E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green 24
features.
F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating 26
building placement and form.
G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity 28
and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large.
H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of 30
all economic and age segments.
32
Exhibit 1
Packet Page 325 of 468
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
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B
Packet Page 326 of 468
Permitted Uses WMU
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:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk and/or 10
adjoining commercial areas.
Packet Page 327 of 468
2. The use shall be landscaped and designed to be compatible with the pedestrian
streetscape, as described in chapter 22.110 ECDC. 2
16.110.020 Site development standards.
A. Building and site development standards are further specified in chapter 22.110 ECDC. 4
B. Building setback along external streets. A building setback is required as follows:
12 feet from 100th Avenue W 6
12 feet from SR-104
C. Setbacks and Screening from P- or R-zoned property. All buildings shall be set back a 8
minimum of 15 feet from adjacent P- or R-zoned properties. The required setback from P- or
R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and 10
permanently maintained by the owner of the WMU lot. A six-foot minimum height fence,
wall or solid hedge running the length of the setback shall be provided within the setback 12
area.
D. Parking. Parking space requirements stated here prevail over parking space standards 14
contained in ECDC 17. 50. The specific parking requirements for the Westgate Mixed Use
zone are: 16
1. 1 space for every 500 square feet of leasable commercial space.
2. 1.2 spaces for every dwelling unit not exceeding 900 sq. ft. in livable area. 18
1.75 spaces for every dwelling unit over 900 sq. ft. in livable area.
Parking meeting the commercial parking requirements shall be open to the public 20
throughout business operating hours. Shared parking may be provided per ECDC 20.030.
E. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. 22
16.110.025 Sidewalk development standards.
A. When a new building or building addition of at least 500 square feet is being developed 24
on 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 26
section. Required improvements shall be at the expense of the property owner or his/her
agent. 28
1. The total planting buffer and sidewalk width, as measured from back of street curb,
shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet. This shall be comprised of a planting buffer five (5) 30
feet wide immediately behind the street curb and a sidewalk at least seven (7) feet wide
adjacent to the planting buffer, except as otherwise provided in subsections A.2 or A.3 of this 32
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-34
way shall be given to the City.
2. Within the general area of the intersection of 100th Street SW and SR 104, the 36
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 twelve 38
(12) 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 40
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. 42
3. The width of any required planting buffer shall be continued along the property’s
entire street frontage, except that no planting is required across an approved driveway access 44
Packet Page 328 of 468
or where the city engineer determines that planting would reduce sidewalk continuity or
otherwise conflict with pedestrian mobility, including at but not limited to areas adjacent to 2
bus stop pull-out lanes. 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 4
stormwater facilities, and other structures or uses typical along streets, as approved by the
city. 6
16.110.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed 8
building, except:
1. Public utilities and parks and uses associated with amenity and open spaces such as 10
outdoor dining or recreation uses;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 12
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries; 14
5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone,
the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 16
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 18
4.12 ECC.
20
B. Property Performance Standards. All uses shall comply with chapter 17.60 ECDC,
Property Performance Standards. 22
Packet Page 329 of 468
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.
Exhibit 2
Packet Page 330 of 468
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 height in the Westgate Mixed Use zone is established by
the finished grade at the street front, so that buildings may not use adjoining slopes to increase 24
the average height of the building above the street front level. Figure 22.110.010.B illustrates
building height limits and step back requirements for buildings in the Westgate Mixed Use 26
zone.
The only exception to these height limits is when a building contains an undivided retail 28
space that is at least 15,000 square feet is size. When such a space is included on the ground
floor of a building (such as for a grocery or drug store), then the overall building height may 30
be increased by 1 foot for each foot that the first floor height exceeds 10 feet, up to a total of
no more than 5 feet, to accommodate the additional ceiling height needed to accommodate the 32
large retail use. A building that has taken advantage of this additional height may not have its
retail space subdivided below the 15,000 square foot minimum at any time during the 34
building’s lifetime.
36
Packet Page 331 of 468
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. Exceptions may be granted as part of the 8
design review process when it can be demonstrated that the proposed development will
achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by allowing such an 10
exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle
parking shall not be located so as to separate the building from the public street. 12
D. Building Type Descriptions. The following describe the different building types and
include diagrams indicating where each building type is allowed. Note that where descriptions 14
and standards refer to “street” this is intended to refer to either an external street or an internal
street or drive which provides secondary vehicular and pedestrian access within the overall 16
development(s).
Each building type is allowed only within specified locations within the Westgate Mixed 18
Use zone, as shown in Figure 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 20
buildings are allowed per site, so long as each building conforms with the building type
locations specified in Figure 22.110.010.D. 22
Packet Page 332 of 468
Figure 22.110.010.D Building Type Locations
2
4
Packet Page 333 of 468
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 334 of 468
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 Figure 22.110.010.D.
Access. 10
The primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the external
street or sidewalk if feasible. Where dwellings are accessed from internal streets or circulation 12
drives, then the primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the
internal street or circulation drive. Parking and services shall be accessed from an internal 14
street or alley or tuck-under parking. Parking entrances are allowed on an internal street if the
garage entrance does not occupy more than one half the building frontage. 16
Amenity Space.
Publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided as described in section 22.110.070 18
ECDC. Usable outdoor amenity space shall be provided in conjunction with and related to
the dwelling units at no less than 15% of the lot area. The outdoor space shall be of a regular 20
geometry so that the space is usable for recreational or leisure use.
Open Space 22
Packet Page 335 of 468
• 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 2
space.
• Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas 4
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 6
count toward more than 50% of the required open space.
• Protected slope areas may also count as open space. 8
Landscape.
Landscape may be used to separate a front yard from the front yards of adjacent units or 10
buildings. Any front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at
maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the 12
frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no
more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be 14
dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for
shade and privacy. 16
Building Design and Massing.
Buildings on corner properties adjacent to streets shall be designed with a main façade and 18
a secondary façade to provide street frontage on all streets. In a 3 story building, a townhouse
dwelling may be stacked over a ground floor flat. In this case, the flat shall be accessed by its 20
own front doors at the street and the townhouse dwelling shall be accessed by a separate front
door and an internal stair. In a 2 story building, the rowhouse consists of a townhouse 22
dwelling that is accessed from the street and faces the street, or residential flats that each have
a street entry. 24
Rowhouse buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level
Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 26
22.110.015.
28
30
Packet Page 336 of 468
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, plazas and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area only if they are 22
Packet Page 337 of 468
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
• Protected slope areas may also count as open space.
• Courtyards shall be connected to the public way and/or to each other. Connecting spaces 16
shall be at least 10 feet wide.
Landscape. 18
Landscape shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent lots.
Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s maturity, no 20
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 more than 22
30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree).
In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 24
or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy.
Building Design and Massing. 26
• 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, 28
rear yard or alley.
• No exterior arcade shall encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 30
• Stoops up to 3 feet in height may be placed above below grade parking.
Building size and massing. 32
• Buildings shall be composed of flats and rowhouses alone or in combination.
• Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 34
• 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-36
scale 30-foot-wide individual residential masses.
• The building is not required to appear to be one building. 38
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 40
section ECDC 22.110.015.
42
Packet Page 338 of 468
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. 18
Open Space
Packet Page 339 of 468
• 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 2
space.
• Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas 4
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 6
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. 8
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.• Protected slope areas may also 10
count as open space.
Landscape. 12
Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent lots.
Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 14
In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new
or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 16
Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of
planters and hardscape landscaping. 18
Building Design and Massing.
Buildings shall be composed of flats, lofts, and rowhouses alone or in combination. 20
• Units may be repetitive or unique in design.
• Buildings shall be composed of individual masses that are intended to break up the 22
building into identifiable housing units rather than large undifferentiated blocks. The building
is not required to appear to be one building. 24
Stacked dwelling buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground
Level Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 26
22.110.015.
28
Packet Page 340 of 468
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 Figure 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 341 of 468
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.
Amenity space shall be provided behind the live-work at no less than 15% of the lot area 10
and of a regular geometry with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. Alternatively, 50% of the
amenity space may be provided at the front of the lot. 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. 18
• 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. 20
• Protected slope areas may also count as open space.
Landscape 22
Landscape shall not obscure the storefront of the ground floor flex/work space.
In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 24
or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy.
Frontage 26
• Commercial/work/flex space and living areas shall be oriented toward the fronting street
or sidewalk. Service rooms should be oriented towards the side and rear yards. 28
• Commercial/work/flex spaces shall conform to Shopfront Frontage Type Standards (see
ECDC 22.110.020). 30
• Buildings on corner lots may provide an appropriate frontage type on each street front.
Building Design and Massing 32
Live-work units may be designed as individual buildings composed of 2- and/or 3-story
volumes or included in larger buildings in compliance with the applicable building type 34
requirements.
Live-Work buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (3) Ground Level 36
Details, and (5) Treating Blank Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC
22.110.015. 38
40
Packet Page 342 of 468
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 343 of 468
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
Landscape
Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from front yards on adjacent lots. Trees 14
may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place.
Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to provide a combination of 16
integrated landscaping and seating/active circulation areas.
In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 18
or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy.
Building Design and Massing. 20
Lofts may be provided as part of commercial or residential units, but must be provided on
at least one floor of the building. Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 22
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 24
Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015.
26
Packet Page 344 of 468
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 Figure 22.110.010.D.
Access 14
• The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off the common courtyard
or directly from an external street or sidewalk. Access to commercial and office uses may be 16
directly from an external street, sidewalk, or side courtyard.
• Access to second-story units or suites shall be through an open, open roofed, or internal 18
stair.
• Parking shall be accessed through an alley, internal circulation drive, or shared driveway 20
access. Parking shall not be accessed directly from the exterior street via individual driveways
Packet Page 345 of 468
• 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
• Protected slope areas may also count as open space.
Landscape 30
Landscape shall not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent lots.
Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s maturity, no 32
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 more than 34
30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree).
In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 36
or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy.
Building Design and Massing 38
• The building elevation abutting an inactive side yard shall be designed to provide at least
one horizontal break of at least three feet and one vertical break. 40
• Buildings on corner lots shall be designed with two facades using similar scale and design
features without the use of blank walls. 42
• Units within the buildings may be flats and/or townhouses.
Side Court Mixed Use buildings shall comply with the (1) Massing and Articulation, (2) 44
Orientation to Street, (3) Ground Level Details, (4) Pedestrian Façade, and (5) Treating Blank
Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015. 46
Packet Page 346 of 468
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
Figure 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 347 of 468
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. In a project with 4
multiple amenity space areas at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below:
• Optimal amenity space area dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis 6
of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet wide when the court is oriented
North/South. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. 8
• In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the
applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 10
30-foot wide court.
Open Space 12
• 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 14
space.
• Open space may be public or private. Open space shall not include balconies or areas 16
covered by or located under buildings, such as arcades. A roof deck or green roof may only be
counted as open space if it is accessible. 18
• Protected slope areas may also count as open space.
• Side yards or courts are allowed for common use gardens. Landscape 20
Private landscaping is required. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to
create a sense of place. 22
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 24
through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade
and privacy. 26
Building Design and Massing
Buildings shall be composed of office, retail, flats, or lofts alone or above commercial 28
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. 30
• 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. 32
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 34
Walls design treatments specified in section ECDC 22.110.015.
36
Packet Page 348 of 468
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 elevation of 7” from the 30
adjoining sidewalk. Entrances to buildings shall be
visible from the street and shall be given a visually 32
distinct architectural expression by one or more of
the following elements: 34
a. Higher bay(s);
b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet); 36
c. Forecourt and entrance plaza.
38
Packet Page 349 of 468
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 but that is of a similar 18
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 street front shall have transparent windows
covering a minimum of 40 percent of the ground floor façade that lies between an average of 24
two feet and 10 feet above grade. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or
consist of darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. 26
5. Treating Blank Walls 28
Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls. Walls or portions
of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided 30
shall have architectural treatment. At least five of the following elements shall be
incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing facade: 32
a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block);
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; 34
c. Belt courses of a different texture and color;
d. Projecting cornice; 36
e. Decorative tile work;
f. Medallions; 38
g. Opaque or translucent glass;
h. Artwork or wall graphics; 40
i. Lighting fixtures;
j. Green walls; 42
k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent.
Packet Page 350 of 468
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 351 of 468
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 352 of 468
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. 40
D. Housing. 42
To promote a balance in age demographics and encourage age diversity, the City of
Edmonds is actively encouraging a greater number of dwelling units targeting young 44
professionals and young workers through workforce housing provisions. The Westgate Mixed
Packet Page 353 of 468
Use District requires that at least 10% of residential units shall be very small units designed
for affordable workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and that not more than 10% of all 2
dwelling units may exceed 1,600 square feet in size.
4
22.110.050 Circulation and parking.
A. Alternative transportation. 6
The goals of the Westgate Mixed Use District include improving connectedness for
pedestrian and bicycle users. Developers of private property within Westgate shall support the 8
pedestrian and bicycle use of the District by providing:
• Internal circulation systems for both bicyclists and pedestrians within the property, 10
• Connections to off-site systems in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties,
• Bicycle racks and other supportive facilities, and 12
• Connections to bus stops and transit routes.
B. Internal circulation drives. 14
The concept for an Internal Circulation drive is that of a shared street. This concept is
intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and 16
provide pedestrian connectivity and to reduce the impact of local traffic movement on
surrounding arterial streets. 18
Thoroughfare Type: shared street
Movement: yield 20
Design Speed: 10 mph
Traffic Lanes: 10 feet 22
Parking: none
Curb to Curb Distance: no curbs 24
Sidewalks: 6 feet
26
Sample street section for internal circulation drive. 28
Packet Page 354 of 468
C. Parking
The Westgate District parking standards are intended to reinforce that the area is 2
pedestrian-oriented and intended to be equally accessible by people on foot, in wheelchairs,
on bicycles, or travelling by motorized vehicles. These standards strive to: 4
(a) maximize a compatible mix of parking and pedestrian circulation; and
(b) encourage the development of shared parking; and 6
(c) promote density and diversity of the built environment.
Design standards for parking lots include the following: 8
(a) No lot shall be used principally as a parking lot unless it provides centralized parking
for the larger developed area framed by external streets (e.g. a parking garage). 10
(b) The edge of any surface parking lot shall be planted with shrubs or street trees, planted
at an average distance not to exceed thirty (30) feet on center and aligned three (3) to seven 12
(7) feet behind the common lot line. This requirement may be reduced for parking lot edges
abutting parking on adjacent lots, when parking lots are linked by vehicular and pedestrian 14
connections (see item (f) below).
(c) Plantings designed to provide a minimum tree canopy coverage of at least 40% in 10 16
years and no less than 60% in 20 years.
(d) Parking lot pathways are to be provided at least every four rows of parking and a 18
maximum distance of 180 feet shall be maintained between paths. Pathways shall connect
with major building entries or other sidewalks, pathways, and destinations, and must be 20
universally accessible and meet ADA standards.
(e) Landscaping in parking lots shall integrate with on-site pathways, include permeable 22
pavements or bioswales where feasible, and minimize use of impervious pavement.
(f) Where a parking lot is abutting another parking lot on an adjacent lot, vehicular and 24
pedestrian connections between lots are required, to facilitate circulation within Westgate and
to reduce the need for vehicles to return to the street when traveling between sites. 26
22.110.070 Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Factor Standards.
A. Purpose and intent. 28
This section identifies the types of amenity space and open space allowed to satisfy the
requirements of the Westgate Mixed Use zone, and provides design standards for each type to 30
ensure that proposed development is consistent with the City of Edmonds’ goals for character
and quality of the buildings and spaces to be constructed on private property within the 32
Westgate area. This section also describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each
development within Westgate. 34
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 36
resources for the benefit of the greater community. Core principles of the Westgate Mixed
Use Zone are to promote: 38
• an environment that encourages and facilitates bicycling and pedestrian activity —
“walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and 40
• coherence of the public-right-of-way, serving to assist residents, building owners and
managers with understanding the relationship between the public right-of-way and their own 42
properties; and
Packet Page 355 of 468
• 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
1. Overview 6
The Green Factor sets a minimum score that is required to be achieved by each
development through implementation of landscaping practices. The program provides a menu 8
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 the site design 10
and implementation. In this approach, each qualified landscape feature utilized in a project
earns credits that are weighted and calculated through use of the Green Factor Scoresheet. The 12
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 0.3,
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 site
requirements such as Setbacks, Open Space Standards, Street and Parking Standards, and City 26
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 Tree List. 36
The Green Factor tools are 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 356 of 468
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. The percentage of Amenity Space for Westgate is 15% of lot size, to be
addressed within each development project . The Open Space section 22.110.070(D) also 14
addresses green feature requirements, such as retention of vegetation on steep slopes,
specifications for tree size, and stormwater management (refer to ECDC18.30); these are 16
examples of features that are likely to overlap with and contribute to the Green Factor score
while also contributing to the Open Space requirement. 18
3. Green Factor Categories:
The Green Factor tools may take into account the following Landscape Elements: 20
• Landscaped Areas (based on soil depth)
• Bio-retention Facilities 22
• Plantings (mulch and ground cover)
• Shrubs and Perennials 24
• Tree Canopy (based on tree sizes)
• Green Roofs 26
• Vegetated Walls
• Approved Water Features 28
• Permeable Paving
• Structural Soil Systems 30
• Bonuses for Drought Tolerant Plants, Harvested Rain Water, Food Cultivation, etc.
32
C. Amenity Space
Amenity space is designed to provide residents and visitors of all ages with a variety of 34
outdoor activity space. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form
the places that encourage residents and visitors to spend time in the company of others or to 36
enjoy time in an outdoor setting.
All new development shall provide amenity space equal to at least 15% of the lot size. 38
Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is encouraged and can be part of
the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in chapter 22.110.070(B) ECDC or can 40
contribute to bonus heights as defined in chapter 22.110.090 ECDC. All qualifying amenity
space shall be open and accessible to the public during business hours. Qualifying amenity 42
space shall be open to the air and located within six feet of the finished grade in order to
provide some opportunity for variety and interest in public space while assuring easy 44
accessibility for the public.
Packet Page 357 of 468
Required and bonus amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms
and no others: 2
(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 4
trees and shall provide a minimum of 60% planted pervious surface area (such as a turf,
groundcover, soil or mulch.) 6
(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 8
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 10
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 12
maximum 30% impervious paved surface.
(c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation or civic purposes. A square is 14
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 16
(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. 18
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 20
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 22
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 24
code standards.
26
D. Open Space
All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of lot size as open space. Qualifying 28
open space shall be unobstructed and open to the air. The goal for the overall open space in
the Westgate Mixed Use zone is to create a unified, harmonious, and aesthetically pleasing 30
environment that also integrates sustainable concepts and solutions that restore natural
functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate Mixed Use zone shall 32
incorporate open space, as described in the regulations for each building type. Features
contributing to the landscape character of Westgate also include: 34
(a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying 36
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 38
mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of
open space and amenity space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the 40
District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles.
• All new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. 42
• All new development shall plant new trees in accordance with this chapter.
Trees not included in amenity space or open space areas are not counted toward meeting 44
overall amenity space or open space requirements. For example, individual trees planted
Packet Page 358 of 468
along walkways or driveways may count toward meeting the Green Factor requirements but
are not counted as open space. 2
(b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees 4
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 6
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 8
they retain existing trees or are supplemented to provide a vegetative buffer.
10
(c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks should be conveyed to
planted parkways or landscaped rain gardens. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the 12
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 14
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 16
toward required open space only if they are entirely landscaped.
18
22.110.070.D Protected Slopes
20
Packet Page 359 of 468
22.110.080 Public Space Standards.
. Future development of the Westgate Mixed Use District shall capitalize on opportunities 2
to create and enhance public spaces for recreational use, pedestrian activity, and ecological
health to strengthen the overall character of the District’s public spaces. 4
A. Public Space: General Requirements 6
Public space shall enhance and promote the environmental quality and the aesthetic
character of the Westgate District in the following ways: 8
(a) the landscape shall define, unify and enhance the public realm; including streets, parks,
plazas, and sidewalks; 10
(b) the landscape shall be sensitive to its environmental context and utilize plant species
that reduce the need for supplemental irrigation water; 12
(c) the landscape shall cleanse and detain storm water on site by utilizing a combination of
biofiltration, permeable paving and subsurface detention methods; and, 14
(d) the landscape shall be compatible with encouraging health and wellness, encouraging
walking, bicycling, and other activities. 16
B. Public Space: Sustainability 18
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 20
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 22
natural ecology.
Water efficient landscaping shall be introduced to reduce irrigation requirements based on a 24
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 26
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 28
chemical herbicide treatments.
Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation technology with low-pressure 30
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 32
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. 34
The location and selection of all new tree planting will implement ‘green infrastructure’
principles and visually express the underlying interconnectivity of the Westgate development 36
by doing the following:
1. Species selection shall be comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and 38
deciduous trees.
2. Trees shall be used to define the landscape character of recreation and open space 40
areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the neighborhood by
defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. 42
3. Trees shall also be used to soften and shade surface parking and circulation areas.
44
Packet Page 360 of 468
2
C. Stormwater Management.
Stormwater shall be consistent with chapter 18.30 ECDC. 4
Stormwater and hydrology components shall be integrated into the Westgate District to
restore and maintain natural functions and processes, mitigate negative environmental 6
impacts.
Public rights-of-way, proposed open space and parking lots shall filter and infiltrate 8
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 10
neighborhoods, stream corridors and the regional watershed.
The two primary objectives of the proposed stormwater and hydrology components are: 12
(a) to reduce volume and rate of runoff; and
(b) to eliminate or minimize runoff pollutants through natural filtration. 14
These objectives shall be met by:
(a) maximizing pervious areas; 16
(b) maximizing the use of trees;
(c) controlling runoff into bioswales and biofiltration strips; 18
(d) utilizing permeable paving surfaces where applicable and feasible;
(e) utilizing portions of parks and recreational spaces as detention basin; and 20
(f ) removing sediments and dissolved pollutants from runoff.
22
D. SR-104 / 100th Avenue Intersection.
The configuration of development, amenity space, open space, and landscaping at this key 24
intersection is intended to provide a sense of place and serve as a signal of arrival at the
Westgate area. 26
1. Step-backs are required for buildings at this intersection, as illustrated in Figure
22.110.010.B. 28
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 30
importance as a focal point of the Westgate area.
Packet Page 361 of 468
22.110.090 Height Bonus.
Areas eligible for a 4th story height bonus are shown in the diagram contained in chapter 2
22.110.010.B ECDC. Areas within the Westgate Mixed Use District that are not shown in
diagram ECDC 22.110.010.B may not contain four story buildings regardless of how many 4
points such a development could achieve on the Height Bonus Score Sheet, below. In order to
obtain the height bonus for projects in eligible areas, the proposal must obtain 8 points from 6
the Height Bonus Score Sheet, with at least one point in each of at least four different scoring
categories. 8
When a 4th story is proposed in a building, the 4th story must be stepped back at least 10
feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Ave W. In addition, no 3rd or 4th story may 10
be located within 30 feet of the intersection of SR-100 and 100th Ave W, measured from the
corner points of the right-of-way intersection. 12
For proposals seeking to earn points in the Green Building Program category, the applicant
shall be required to submit a deposit sufficient for the city to retain an independent green 14
building consultant who is qualified to evaluate the construction of the building at key
milestones in order to determine that the building is being constructed in a manner that is 16
consistent with the points proposed on the Height Bonus Score Sheet.
18
Packet Page 362 of 468
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/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.
2 “Required” means required for all development, whether seeking a height bonus or not. 2
3. “Car-share” parking refers to parking for vehicles that are rented by the hour or portion of a day.
4
22.110.100 Green Factor Tools
The Green Factor Tools included in Exhibit A are adopted by reference herein as if set 6
forth in their entirety for use in meeting the Green Factor requirements described in ECDC
22.110.070(B). 8
Packet Page 363 of 468
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 364 of 468
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 365 of 468
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 366 of 468
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 367 of 468
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 368 of 468
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 369 of 468
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 370 of 468
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 371 of 468
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 372 of 468
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 373 of 468
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 374 of 468
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 375 of 468
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 376 of 468
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 377 of 468
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 378 of 468
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 379 of 468
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 380 of 468
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 381 of 468
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 382 of 468
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 383 of 468
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 384 of 468
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 AmendmentExhibit 3
Packet Page 385 of 468
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 Purposes. 12
The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone has the following specific purposes in addition to
the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in chapter 16.40 ECDC: 14
A. Encourage mixed-use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction
with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and 16
open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a
desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the 18
larger Westgate District with a distinctive character.
B. Create mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, 20
attractive and community-friendly.
C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. 22
D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings.
E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green 24
features.
F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating 26
building placement and form.
G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity 28
and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large.
H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of 30
all economic and age segments.
32
Packet Page 386 of 468
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
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B
Packet Page 387 of 468
Permitted Uses WMU
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:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk and/or 10
adjoining commercial areas.
Packet Page 388 of 468
2. The use shall be landscaped and designed to be compatible with the pedestrian
streetscape, as described in chapter 22.110 ECDC. 2
16.110.020 Site development standards.
A. Building and site development standards are further specified in chapter 22.110 ECDC. 4
B. Building setback along external streets. A building setback is required as follows:
12 feet from 100th Avenue W 6
12 feet from SR-104
C. Setbacks and Screening from P- or R-zoned property. All buildings shall be set back a 8
minimum of 15 feet from adjacent P- or R-zoned properties. The required setback from P- or
R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and 10
permanently maintained by the owner of the WMU lot. A six-foot minimum height fence,
wall or solid hedge running the length of the setback shall be provided within the setback 12
area.
D. Parking. Parking space requirements stated here prevail over parking space standards 14
contained in ECDC 17. 050. The specific parking requirements for the Westgate Mixed Use
zone are: 16
1. 1 space for every 500 square feet of leasable commercial space.
2. 1.2 spaces for every dwelling unit not exceeding 900 sq. ft. in livable area. 18
1.75 spaces for every dwelling unit over 900 sq. ft. in livable area.
Parking meeting the commercial parking requirements shall be open to the public 20
throughout business operating hours. Shared parking may be provided per ECDC 20.030.
E. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. 22
16.110.025 Sidewalk development standards.
A. When a new building or building addition of at least 500 square feet is being developed 24
on 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 26
section. Required improvements shall be at the expense of the property owner or his/her
agent. 28
1. The total planting buffer and sidewalk width, as measured from back of street curb,
shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet. This shall be comprised of a planting buffer five (5) 30
feet wide immediately behind the street curb and a sidewalk at least seven (7) feet wide
adjacent to the planting buffer, except as otherwise provided in subsections A.2 or A.3 of this 32
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-34
way shall be given to the City.
2. Within the general area of the intersection of 100th Street SW and SR 104, the 36
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 twelve 38
(12) 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 40
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. 42
3. The width of any required planting buffer shall be continued along the property’s
entire street frontage, except that no planting is required across an approved driveway access 44
Packet Page 389 of 468
or where the city engineer determines that planting would reduce sidewalk continuity or
otherwise conflict with pedestrian mobility, including at but not limited to areas adjacent to 2
bus stop pull-out lanes. 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 4
stormwater facilities, and other structures or uses typical along streets, as approved by the
city. 6
16.110.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed 8
building, except:
1. Public utilities and parks and uses associated with amenity and open spaces such as 10
outdoor dining or recreation uses;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 12
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries; 14
5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone,
the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 16
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 18
4.12 ECC.
20
B. NuisancesProperty Performance Standards. All uses shall comply with chapter 17.60
ECDC, Property Performance Standards. 22
Packet Page 390 of 468
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 391 of 468
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 392 of 468
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 393 of 468
Figure 22.110.010.D Building Type Locations
2
4
Packet Page 394 of 468
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 395 of 468
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 396 of 468
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 397 of 468
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 398 of 468
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 399 of 468
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 400 of 468
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 401 of 468
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 402 of 468
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 403 of 468
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 404 of 468
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 405 of 468
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 406 of 468
• 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 407 of 468
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 408 of 468
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 409 of 468
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 410 of 468
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 411 of 468
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 412 of 468
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 413 of 468
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 414 of 468
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 415 of 468
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
Packet Page 416 of 468
C. Parking
The Westgate District parking standards are intended to reinforce that the area is 2
pedestrian-oriented and intended to be equally accessible by people on foot, in wheelchairs,
on bicycles, or travelling by motorized vehicles. These standards strive to: 4
(a) maximize a compatible mix of parking and pedestrian circulation; and
(b) encourage the development of shared parking; and 6
(c) promote density and diversity of the built environment.
Design standards for parking lots include the following: 8
(a) No parcellot shall be used principally as a parking lot unless it provides centralized
parking for the larger developed area framed by external streets (e.g. a parking garage). 10
(b) The edge of any surface parking lot shall be planted with shrubs or street trees, planted
at an average distance not to exceed thirty (30) feet on center and aligned three (3) to seven 12
(7) feet behind the common lot line. This requirement may be reduced for parking lot edges
abutting parking on adjacent lots, when parking lots are linked by vehicular and pedestrian 14
connections (see item (f) below).
(c) Plantings designed to provide a minimum tree canopy coverage of at least 40% in 10 16
years and no less than 60% in 20 years.
(d) Parking lot pathways are to be provided at least every four rows of parking and a 18
maximum distance of 180 feet shall be maintained between paths. Pathways shall connect
with major building entries or other sidewalks, pathways, and destinations, and must be 20
universally accessible and meet ADA standards.
(e) Landscaping in parking lots shall integrate with on-site pathways, include permeable 22
pavements or bioswales where feasible, and minimize use of impervious pavement.
(f) Where a parking lot is abutting another parking lot on an adjacent parcellot, vehicular 24
and pedestrian connections between lots are required, to facilitate circulation within Westgate
and to reduce the need for vehicles to return to the street when traveling between sites. 26
22.110.070 Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Feature Factor Standards.
A. Purpose and intent. 28
This section identifies the types of amenity space spaces and greenand open space allowed
to satisfy the requirements ofwithin the Westgate District Mixed Use zone, and provides 30
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 and 32
spaces to be constructed on private property within the Westgate area. This section also
describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each development within Westgate. 34
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 36
resources for the benefit of the greater community. Core principles of the Westgate Mixed
Use Zone are to promote: 38
• an environment that encourages and facilitates bicycling and pedestrian activity —
“walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and 40
• coherence of the public-right-of-way, serving to assist residents, building owners and
managers with understanding the relationship between the public right-of-way and their own 42
properties; and
Packet Page 417 of 468
• 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 418 of 468
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 419 of 468
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 420 of 468
(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 421 of 468
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 422 of 468
(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 423 of 468
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 424 of 468
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 425 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 7
grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, etc. Any transfer to an immediate family
member is exempt from I-594.
Student Representative Eslami commented a year ago after the Sandy Hook shooting, there was a rumor
at Edmonds-Woodway High School about a student possibly bringing a gun to school. Since then,
students are not allowed to bring backpacks to assemblies. He summarized he likes to have his backpack
during an assembly to get work done and does not want to have to worry about guns while at school.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED.
11. 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
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board’s proposal includes two distinct actions:
1. Establishment of new zone (Westgate Mixed Use)
2. Rezoning of commercial properties in the Westgate area to WMU
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).
The current building height limits are 25 feet in BN, 30 feet in BC and 45 feet in BC-EW. He displayed a
drawing of the area covered by zoning map amendment and reviewed the proposal features:
• No expansion of the existing commercial area
• Additional intensity of development within the commercial area
• “Hybrid zone” mixture of traditional regulations (uses, setback) and form-based elements not
regulated in standard zones (requirements for amenities and open spaces, building types and
locations)
• Mix of building heights dependent on location and topography, 2 – 4 story maximum
• “Green Factor” landscape system
• Additional protection for surrounding slopes and trees/vegetation
• Supporting traffic analysis – no reduction in level of service (LOS) (Note that analysis was done
at higher level of development than currently proposed)
In response to the question Why Westgate, Mr. Chave explained the proposal is a response to a number of
issues and trends:
• 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/multifamily 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 areas, can help transportation choices – the
environment. This was a key point made by Forterra – a partner in the project, who also provided
a letter of support. Encouraging low impact development techniques helps treat stormwater on
site.
Packet Page 426 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 8
He highlighted the Westgate Code discussion up to this point:
• Council public hearing on August 4, 2014
• Process has included 50+ meetings with 3 Planning Board public hearing and several City
Council meetings
• Initial phases included broad advertising and public open houses/design charrettes
• Extensive iterative review
o Many changes and adjustment have been made to the original UW ideas during the Planning
Board and Council review, and in response to public comments.
He reviewed key changes:
• The plan’s emphasis has been shifted for the adjoining streets/highway to the four quadrants that
make up the Westgate commercial area
• The overall proposal is a hybrid approach, combining traditional and form-based elements.
Provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain
minimum building heights or requiring that all buildings be pushed up against the sidewalk lines.
Significant amounts of open space and amenity space are required, as well as pedestrian and non-
motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area.
• Instead of development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now caped in many places to 2 or 3
stories with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories where the nearby slopes are higher, or where no
residences are nearby
• Street setback 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. Council has
had some discussion about increasing this setback to 20 feet.
• The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement and “entry”
emphasis radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this
intersection.
He reviewed several photographs of buildings and uses and spaces created behind buildings a similar area
in Hillsboro. With regard to building heights, he explained buildings vary in height depending on location
and a protected slope line keeps buildings off slopes, retaining vegetative buffer from adjoining
residences. He displayed a map identifying the height of the slopes as well as a map that was prepared to
identify the protected slope lines. He referred to the Walgreen’s building which was built into the slope
and required a high retaining wall; that could not occur under this proposal. The protected slope line is not
expected to impact development because it reflects the existing slopes. He displayed a map that identifies
parcels eligible for 2, 3 and 4 story heights. He clarified there is a point system to obtain four stories that
requires a combination of things such as increased green building features, additional amenity or open
space, larger retail area, etc. A stepback is required on the fourth story.
With regard to traffic and setbacks:
• A traffic study was completed for proposed changes at Westgate
• Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be
analyzed for detail traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) as actual development
occurs
• 12 foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in late 2014/early 2015 will identify any
additional recommendations for improvements. Council is considering increasing the street
setback to 20 feet until the study is done (Bartells submitted letter expressing their concerns with
20 foot setback)
• Setback requirements can be revisited if needed
Packet Page 427 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 9
Mr. Chave relayed Bartell CEO’s indication that the 20-foot setback would have a significant impact on
redevelopment of their property. Bartell is in the process of acquiring all the property around their store.
They are interest in phasing redevelopment that would move their store to the intersection to make it more
visible.
Mr. Chave reviewed an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. The PCC
property line splits the large parking area. QFC’s parking is largely in front but nearby parking areas are
also used by people shopping at QFC.
The proposed code includes the following with regard to parking:
• Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 sf. Blended rate is for all
commercial uses, rather than each use having a different parking standard
• Residential parking is 1.2 for small units, 1.75 for units larger than 900 sf
• Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided on-site (e.g. QFC property has 1
space per 475 sf; PCC property has 1 space per 486 sf.
• Comparisons with other cities show many employ blended parking rates; 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.
• These are minimum parking standards. Example: McDonald’s provided 42 spaces on site, only 23
were required by code
Mr. Chave provided drawings of Westgate and downtown to illustrate streetscape and scale:
• Westgate
o 80 feet of right-of-way on SR-104
o 10 feet set aside within the right-of-way for sidewalk, planting strip
o 12-foot setback
o Approximately 104 feet between buildings
• Downtown Edmonds
o 30 building heights
o 60 foot right-of-way
o Sidewalks, travel lanes and parking are within the right-of-way
To address the comment that the proposal will produce a canyon effect, he scaled the SR-104 right-of-
way to the size of downtown. Although the buildings are taller in Westgate, with the additional right-of-
way width and setback, the scale of buildings to the right-of-way and overall feeling of the streetscape
will not differ greatly from downtown.
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
He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and provided details to illustrate amenity/open
space versus setbacks:
• 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
Packet Page 428 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 10
• 76,000 total lot area
• 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 commercial requirements, the various building types were clarified 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
Commercial buildings can be located anywhere in the Westgate area. The area around the intersection is
reserved for commercial mixed use. Residential only buildings are on the periphery in areas that do not
front on SR-104 and are either adjacent to residential areas or protected slopes.
He displayed the original and a revised building type map, commented the building types have been
updated to provide for more choices. 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)
He displayed photographs of the features of typical commercial type buildings that have been integrated
into the Westgate plan. With regard to large format retail, he explained:
• Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) with the
potential for an extra 4th floor plus an extra 5 feet of height granted if a large store is part of the
building
• Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest
in expanding their investment (QFC and Bartell own their properties; PCC and Walgreens have
long term leases)
• Bartells has expressed concern that a 20-foot setback may have a “significant impact on their
ability to redevelop”
Councilmember Petso referred to the aerial photograph of QFC parking lot and property line, recalling
from an earlier presentation that the parking area owned by QFC only provides 1 space per 475 square
feet but including the shared parking area to the north, their functional parking is 1 space per 350. Mr.
Chave recalled the parking ratios for QFC and PCC were 1 for 350 and 1 for 370. Councilmember Petso
observed the PCC parking area to the east is not on their property Mr. Chave agreed.
Packet Page 429 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 11
Councilmember Petso asked whether the residents who spoke at the Planning Board regarding a 4-story
building’s impact on their property were notified of the change to allow an additional 5 feet of height for
large format retail. Mr. Chave advised no specific notice had been done. The only place that would be a
factor would be the southeast quadrant. Councilmember Petso asked whether residents in that quadrant
expressed concerns at the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained the photographs residents displayed of
views from their properties illustrated the dense vegetation. Although the buildings were a concern, their
primary concern was the trees and landscaping on the protected slope. A large retail presence is required
to obtain the additional 5 feet; that was unlikely to occur in the southeast quadrant because the properties
are shallow especially along SR-104. There likely would not be much impact if that area were exempted
from the additional 5 feet.
Councilmember Petso observed on properties with narrow frontage such as Ivar’s, the curb cut and
parking garage entrance would leave little room for street front commercial She asked whether a
minimum frontage was required before a curb cut/parking garage entrance was allowed. Mr. Chave
answered there was a 12-foot setback, amenity space, and open space; they would only be allowed what
would fit on the property. Councilmember Petso provided an example she saw on Greenwood Avenue
and 143rd in Seattle where the parking garage entrance was on 143rd; if that entrance had been on the
Greenwood Avenue side, there would have been little space for commercial. Mr. Chave answered one of
significant requirements in the code is that parking areas be connected. If one property is developing, they
will have to make connections to the adjoining properties. That potentially means there will be less curb
cuts, more internal circulation and avoids a line of garage entrances.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, responded to comments he has read online and statements made during a
recent Town Hall meeting that this process is City staff and mayor driven which is factually incorrect.
Those types of comments personalize the issue and take away from the real issue, making a decision on
the merits of the proposal. The request to initiate neighborhood business center plans for the Westgate and
Five Corners commercial areas came from the Planning Board and the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) as seen on page 3 of the 2009 Annual Report presented to the City Council on
January 19, 2010. On March 16, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 1224 that stated the City
Council shall act on the work of the EDC and its recommendations including but not limited to initiating
neighborhood business center plans for Five Corners, Perrinville and Westgate. On August 3, 2010
following a presentation on the recommendation by the EDC, City Council authorized staff to initiate
agreements with the UW to proceed on the study. The UW was intended to be a consultant to facilitate
process. The City Council subsequently approved funding for a market feasibility analysis. On June 21,
2011 following a presentation by UW representatives, the City Council approved forwarding the
Westgate plan to the Planning Board for further discussion. The role of City staff was to oversee the
contract with the UW and to help facilitate the process. This process has never been a mayor and staff
driven process; in fact Mayor Earling was not even in his position when this process began. Staff has
checked in with the Council to obtain authorization to continue moving forward and this process has been
discussed during City Council retreats.
Charles Tuura, Edmonds, commented no matter how much lipstick is put on it, this idea is pig. He
questioned the traffic study, recalling the backup last Friday caused by rerouting traffic on SR-104 to
work on a gas line. A project such as this would require lane closures to accommodate trucks. He also
questioned where the children in the planned 1600 units would play and go to school. His neighborhood
is transitioning with younger families moving in to raise their families and unwind from the rat race that
is being proposed. He feared adding businesses at Westgate would kill downtown businesses. He
questioned the transparency of this process; he first heard about it in August and few in his neighborhood
had heard about it. He suggested a vote of the people instead of a Council decision, allow residents to
decide whether they wanted to have an Edmonds kind of day or a Kirkland kind of nightmare. He
Packet Page 430 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 12
summarized growth was inevitable but needed to be managed. To the comment that this type of
development was successful in DC, he suggested it was successful for the developers, the owners and the
real estate lobby, not the residents. To grow economically the City needs to nurture existing businesses
and stop the personal war on marijuana businesses.
Councilmember Petso read comments from Trudy Abdo, Edmonds, who requested her comments be
read into the record. As a Westgate resident, she was concerned about the development plans. First, the
limited public notice to the area and the push to pass the plan with little public input raised her suspicions
of the plan. Second, with regarding traffic and parking; getting to QFC and Bartells is frustrating; this
plan proposes to decrease the required parking. She suggested one parking space for each bedroom,
noting residents would need cars because they cannot walk to work or take the bus. She questioned an
effort to make Westgate a walkable community when there was a highway through the middle. The traffic
study should take place in the afternoon, 4:30 p.m. on a Friday would be best, not a Tuesday morning at
10:00 a.m. She will shop elsewhere if traffic and parking becomes more difficult. Third, she feared
Edmonds Way would look like a canyon and/or wind tunnel if 4-story buildings are allowed to be built
close to the highway. Quality apartments set back would be much nicer. She suggested more
consideration, planning and public input were needed before the plan was approved.
Mayor Earling advised received written comments had been received from Bob Throndsen, a resident a
few blocks from Westgate, that listed 12 issues/questions/ concerns. Forterra also submitted a letter of
support for the proposal.
Tim Tuura, Edmonds, a Westgate resident, voiced his opposition to the proposed zoning change for the
Westgate area. Mixed use means 1-2 levels of underground parking, 1 level of storefront retail with 2-3
stories of retail above, a concept he is familiar with as the company he works for builds this in Seattle.
During construction it will be necessary to cone off one lane of SR-104 for truck to access the site. He has
watched the traffic level of service in the Westgate intersection diminish significantly over the past five
years due to hourly arrivals and departures of two ferries, often reaching near gridlock in the summer. He
summarized coning off lanes was asking for trouble.
Tom Crichide, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed plan, commenting traffic in the area was already
difficult; QFC’s parking lot is jammed on the weekend. He agreed access for construction vehicles,
parking for the trades and providing space to work will create problems. As a driver for an electrical
distributor he encounters these issues in similar type developments. He suggested the traffic survey be
conducted over a year due to different traffic patterns in summer versus winter.
Matt Waldron, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work. Due to its great access to transportation,
the Westgate corners are prime for development. They are slightly disjoined so a redo of the geography
and the architecture would be a good thing for all. The desired result would be an urban-like hub that
maximizes and monetizes as much space as possible. He favored a broad liberal discussion of how the
Westgate area can be opened to development so all the big ideas can be considered including
modernization, innovation and improving the space. Few great things have occurred from thinking small.
There are good and talented people on staff who have the training to help the City grow and develop
properly. He urged the Council to finish this process that has been going on for years, and then redirect
their focus on the waterfront and train problem. He suggested watching the video on My Edmonds New
TV.
Maggie Fima, Edmonds, previously on the Shoreline and King County Councils, recalled in 1994 when
GMA was being implemented, people would often say they did not want any more development. When
asked why did they did not support development in the city when they supported GMA that directed
infrastructure and development to the existing urban area to protect rural areas, the number one comment
was often they did not want any more traffic. She summarized citizens were saying they did not want
Packet Page 431 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 13
more growth because the existing growth was not being addressed. She spoke in favor of the Westgate
plan, maybe not exactly as proposed, but directing growth to the existing urban areas. She appreciated the
work done by the Council, Planning Board, staff and other members of the public; it is consistent with
GMA, regional policies and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Land use and transportation must be done
together to avoid terrible sprawl, traffic and environmental degradation. Single use, single story
development at prime intersections should be a thing of the past; it does not work. She was hopeful this
plan or a close version will pass and as the City moves toward implementation, she encouraged the
Council and staff to incentivize design that supports all age groups and family types especially children
and teens, increased safety for pedestrians as well as identified and proven ways to decrease crime
through design, and enhanced transit service with frequent all day and late hour bus service. She urged the
Council to work to pass this legislation so that the GMA can be implemented.
Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, a Planning Board Member, spoke in favor of the Westgate plan which has been
vetted over nearly five years. The plan promotes accessibility and is sensible. During the vetting process,
the Planning Board and staff listened carefully. For example, after residents expressed concern with the
slopes below their houses, staff analyzed the slopes and topography and returned with suggestions. A
lengthy discussion with the Planning Board followed that resulted in the current proposal. This plan
promotes accessibility via the availability of public transportation and proximity to parks including the
proposed playfields. This plan is sensible; it does not require immediate action by any landowner or
developer and likely will evolve over a 20 year period. It is safe to assume little would occur in 3-7 years
as property is acquired, plans developed and proposals presented to the City. Implementing this plan does
not mean that this kind of mixed use development will be right for any other part of the City; this is not a
one size fits all development. A great deal of work has been done to articulate a plan for this area. He
urged the Council to support the Westgate plan and provide new opportunities for housing, employment
and access to transportation.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed the Planning Board had done a lot of good work. He referred to
concerns he expressed at previous meetings about traffic and congestion and the impact of increased
density. Residents in the surrounding area want to maintain the two grocery stores. He suggested
consideration be given to the reality of what currently exists and whether it was practical to be as
enthusiastic about the change as Mr. Tibbott or better to look at what could be done to accomplish the
neighborhood’s wishes.
Careen Nordling-Rubenkonig, Edmonds, thanked Mr. Waldron for his comments and agreed with
fellow Planning Board Member Tibbott’s comments. She has shopped at Westgate while living in 5
different neighbors during the 28 years she has lived in Edmonds. She described shopping at Westgate as
a single person, as a family with young children and now as empty nesters. She has patronized multiple
businesses in the four quadrants. Edmonds, like her, is at a different place in life. She would like Westgate
to be healthy and to thrive in this day and age, to meet residents’ needs from cradle to grave, to guide
growth and increase in value via this plan. She has great memories of shopping at Westgate and looked
forward to new experiences and a new approach.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, commented there is a lot of noise and fog in an issue like this and there is
always an imbalance in the levels of knowledge and understanding. The key balance is the knowledge the
City Council has. Public input is essential, critical and invaluable but it has its place. He lives near
Westgate and frequently visits seven of the stores. He cautioned not to operate from a fear factor, relaying
he found this an exciting opportunity. Although some communities have gone the wrong way due to
growth, the core of an equal number of cities has been preserved. He did not view the plan as a leap/lurch
into rampant urbanization or unfettered sprawl; it is a step in the right direction to address population and
demographic changes and sources of revenue need to be identified to address the continued increase in the
cost of city services. Councilmembers are elected/selected by a majority; he trusted the Council to make a
good decision.
Packet Page 432 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 14
John Dewhirst, Edmonds, a resident of the Westgate area, agreed with much of what’s been said. This
an opportunity that will open the door to future development. Redevelopment has to start somewhere and
he viewed this as a good start. He envisioned this would help preserve downtown from development
pressure, much of which did not belong downtown. Areas like Westgate and Five Corners can syphon off
that pressure by accommodating neighborhood commercial uses and preserve the specialty, tourist,
restaurant, art gallery environment downtown. Areas outside the bowl deserve same the treatment that has
been given to downtown; there need to be more walkability and more target areas to walk to. Most of the
traffic on SR-104 is not Edmonds traffic but regional traffic; holding up development based on regional
traffic is the wrong approach. He urged the Council to approve the plan.
Rod Shipley, Edmonds, said he currently travels through Westgate ten times a day. He did not share the
same views as many others regarding traffic concerns. As a young family, he would like to see higher
quality places and more walkable spaces, not 1960s development with parking lots on the street front. He
has been part of the process for long time; the most frequent request in the surveys and public engagement
process has been walkability and more public spaces. This plan is a way to get there. He encouraged the
Council to support the plan.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, Chair of the EDC, but speaking as citizen, explained the EDC originally
proposed initiating a neighborhood business/residential plan for Westgate in January 2010 and has been
involved in each step of the process. More than 60 public meetings have been held during last 4½ years
where Westgate has been discussed, including 8 City Council meetings since July 22, 2014. The Westgate
process has been well documented on the City’s website. The record demonstrates there has been
considerable community input regarding Westgate. The Council supported the Westgate redevelopment
concept at its inception and in 2010 appropriated money for the UW Green Futures Lab to create a public
process for the redevelopment of Westgate. Living near Westgate, his family has patronized Westgate
businesses 2-3 times/week for the past 25 years. They have not had the same negative, fearful experiences
of those who oppose redevelopment; they are not afraid to cross SR-104 or 100th or to walk on the
sidewalks. Edmonds citizens living outside the bowl deserve amenities similar to those in the bowl,
including a lifestyle center and a walkable community with easy access to restaurants, services, housing,
transportation and open and amenity spaces. Westgate is the gateway to the downtown and waterfront;
how the gateway portrays Edmonds needs to be improved and unplanned and haphazard development can
no longer be tolerated. The proposed plan for redevelopment of Westgate is sound, and takes into
consideration protection of the environment, creation of amenity and open space, green building
standards, enhanced neighborhood walkability and improves one of the community’s important
neighborhoods. He encouraged the Council to enact the proposed mixed use and zoning map changes to
accommodate Westgate redevelopment.
Tracy Bower, Edmonds, a resident who lives a few blocks from PCC, said she only learned about this
process two days ago. She was uncertain where it had been advertised, she learned about from Edmonds
moms on Facebook. She was unsure how she felt about the proposal but Westgate has been working fine
as is and the businesses are not having problems. QFC and PCC are always crowded and she often has to
circle the lot for parking. She was unsure how apartments and more housing would affect that area. She
questioned where the children will go to school; there are already 30 children in classroom and schools
have been closed due to finding. A lot of things are being swept under the rug so builders and planners
can benefit financially. Redevelopment is not really needed; the storefronts and new buildings may look
prettier but they unnecessary and will make the area more crowded. She remarked on changes in
downtown Edmonds; going to the beach this past Sunday required parking blocks away. She summarized
there were too many people coming into Edmonds, it is not a fun, quaint town anymore and is turning into
a big city.
Packet Page 433 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 15
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the previous speaker’s comment that QFC is always busy,
explaining QFC has been endeavoring for years to get additional space to accommodate more business.
He agreed QFC does have inadequate parking at times but he always manages to find a parking place
when visiting QFC and Bartell twice a week. QFC could build underground parking but needs residential
above to make that feasible. He has attended the School Superintendent monthly luncheon for the past
eight years, not because his children or grandchildren are in school but because most of his property taxes
go to the school district. To the comment about schools closing due to funding, school were closed due to
insufficient enrollment in those areas, not due to funding. He emphasized the Westgate plan will not
happen overnight and is likely a 20 year plan. The Bartell representative indicated their plans are several
years off. He reiterated Councilmembers are elected to listen to the public; however, he estimated the
comment at public hearings represents only .1% of population. He urged the Council to make a decision
soon to approve the plan.
Councilmember Petso read an email from Phil Lovell, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, expressing
his support for the Planning Board’s study, report and recommendation and requesting that the Council
approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan and accompanying zoning revision to the Westgate area. No
member of the Council or public should be questioning the degree or depth of information, background
and public input on Westgate; doing so demonstrates either complete disrespect for the process or
complete ignorance of what is going on in the City. The subject of potential neighborhood zoning
revisions including the Westgate area have been in discussion and development for the past five years.
Council Resolution 1224 mandated this process. Both the Planning Board and EDC have been united in
the study and publication of data comprising the current plan. Results of this work have been thoroughly
summarized in the EDC’s 16-page white paper of July 16, 2014 which details the chronological history of
governmental and public process on this matter. Ad hoc Town Hall meetings on Westgate are not needed
to gather more input from the public and the Council has abundant material on which to base sound
findings and action. He urged the Council to approve the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding the
Westgate area.
Mayor Earling closed the public participation of the public hearing.
Council President Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work done by staff done answering
questions. This item will return to the Council for action on November 3.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
12. MAYOR EARLING PRESENTS TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS HIS 2015
RECOMMENDED CITY BUDGET
Mayor Earling presented the following:
Members of the City Council, staff and citizens of Edmonds:
I am pleased to present to you the 2015 Edmonds City Budget. Every budget year provides a new
adventure. 2015 is no exception. As you will recall in my first budget for 2013, with the then current
trying economic conditions, we had to make dramatic budget reductions amounting to $1.5M from the
General Fund.
In turn, with an improving economy and careful budget management during 2013, we stabilized a bit and
were able to make improvements for this year including; reviving a street repaving program, purchasing
some one time equipment upgrades and adding a few new staff positions.
Packet Page 434 of 468
Packet Page 435 of 468
AM-7246 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Woodway Police Services Contract
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Discussed by Finance Committee on September 9, 2014, with committee request that the matter be
scheduled for full council discussion.
Narrative
The current contract between the city of Edmonds and the town of Woodway for police services expires
on December 31, 2014. Administration of the two cities are in agreement on a proposed contract with a
three year term beginning January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. The only changes between the
present contract and the proposed contract are in the provisions for amount of monthly base rate to be
paid to Edmonds by Woodway for services ($3060/month proposed versus $3000/month currently) for up
to 10 calls per month; a CPI escalator applied to the monthly base rate for years 2016 and 2017; and a
change to the 15 minute incremental rate ($100/15 minutes proposed versus $75/15 minutes currently).
The incremental rate is applied to any calls requiring more than a one police officer response and is
charged when the additional Edmonds officer(s) have been on a Woodway call in excess of their first 15
minutes. The incremental rate is also applied to the responding Edmonds officer's time when the number
of calls in a given month to Woodway exceeds the initial allotment of 10 calls.
This matter was discussed by Finance Committee on September 9, 2014, and was referred to full
council for discussion per the current Agenda Memo.
Attachments to this Agenda Memo are: Woodway Police Services Contract Proposed 2015-2017 and
minutes from the September 18, 2012 Edmonds City Council Meeting during which the current
Woodway Police Services Contract was last discussed and approved.
Attachments
Woodway Police Services Contract Proposed 2015-2017
09-18-2012 Approved City Council Minutes
Form Review
Packet Page 436 of 468
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/27/2014 02:25 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/27/2014 06:10 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/28/2014 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/27/2014 01:34 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2014
Packet Page 437 of 468
1
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES
PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
CHAPTER 39.34 RCW
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions
of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies,
including municipal corporations, to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of
being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town
of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the
provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth in this interlocal
agreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter
"Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway") have entered into this
interlocal agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
I. TERM
THIS AGREEMENT for Police Services (“Agreement”) shall have a three (3) year term
commencing on January 1, 2015 and expiring on December 31, 2017.
1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision
of ninety (90) days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her
regular business address.
1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if:
1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is
provided to City or Town Clerk; and
1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written
notification of breach.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services.
Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as
Packet Page 438 of 468
2
described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond
to the call. In such event, the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency
(“SNOCOM”) shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with
appropriate back-up when needed for:
2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited
to, abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight
with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or
2.2 Priority two (2) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited to,
theft, threats to life or property, residential alarms, panic alarms, suspicious persons, suspicious
circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls.
2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the
definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the
characterization of any call shall be final and determinative.
2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required,
the Edmonds police department will continue to assist, if an officer is available, at no charge, in
accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall:
3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents;
3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene;
3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes;
3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents;
3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and
3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call.
3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall:
3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to
an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer.
3.2.2 Provide any crime scene investigation regarding burglaries, multiple
property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events of a serious or felonious nature.
Packet Page 439 of 468
3
3.2.3 Call out an officer to provide service in the event that arrest and booking
of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be used and an "assist
other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police department officer is
reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such event, the Edmonds police
department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges shall be followed.
3.2.4 Retain evidence at the Woodway police department.
3.2.5 Refer juveniles to the Woodway police department for processing,
including appropriate report and referral.
IV. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
4.1 The Edmonds and Woodway Police Departments’ Chiefs of Police, or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030.
4.2 A written report shall be provided by Edmonds regarding all calls to which an
Edmonds officer is dispatched.
4.3 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department.
4.4 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police department.
V. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties understand and agree that in
the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this Agreement may be delayed or
suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third party right, nor is any special
duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a result of this Agreement.
VI. BILLING PROCESS
6.1 Woodway shall pay to Edmonds the sum of $3,060.00 per month for the services
provided by Edmonds under the terms of this Agreement, which sum shall include a maximum
of ten (10) calls, for the first year of this Agreement. For the second and third years, this
monthly amount will be adjusted yearly by 100% of the CPI-U June to June Index for Seattle-
Tacoma-Bremerton. Services for additional calls beyond the first ten shall be assessed at a flat
rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for the Edmonds officer’s time based on the
nearest 15 minute increment of time spent on the call. This flat rate shall be in effect for the
entire term of the Agreement.
6.2 If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional
officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost
will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment
for each additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The individual
officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway.
Packet Page 440 of 468
4
6.3 Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a
minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment
shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties
agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute
resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve.
VII. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be
responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind
or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with
the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no
Woodway citations are reasonably available.
VIII. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
8.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the
provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and
hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to
the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision
of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold
harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the
extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint
negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including
costs, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington.
IX. INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS
Edmonds and Woodway recognize and agree that each is an independent governmental
entity. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing,
Edmonds shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by
which the services are to be provided unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. Neither
Edmonds nor Woodway, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable
for any debts or obligations of the other party.
Packet Page 441 of 468
5
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile,
sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United
States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
For the City of Edmonds:
City Clerk AND Chief of Police
City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Police Department
121 5th Avenue North 250 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
For the Town of Woodway:
Clerk Treasurer AND Chief of Police
Town of Woodway Town of Woodway Police Department
23920 113 Pl. W 23920 113 Pl. W.
Woodway, WA 98020 Woodway, WA 98020
Or, to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to
accept delivery. Facsimile or electronic mail transmission of any signed original document and
retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be the same as
delivery of an original document.
10.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
parties from entering into contracts for services in support of this Agreement.
10.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The parties
shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes
and intent of this Agreement.
10.4 Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior
understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This Agreement
shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and
Town Council of the respective parties.
Packet Page 442 of 468
6
10.5 Jurisdiction and Venue. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies
exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington.
EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY
By: By:
Mayor David O. Earling Mayor Carla A. Nichols
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
By: By:
Scott Passey, City Clerk Joyce Bielefeld, Clerk Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY:
By: By:
Packet Page 443 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 6
other swimmers. She summarized many children and families enjoy swimming at Yost Pool. She complimented
the staff at Yost Pool who are very accommodating. When completing a survey staff distributed at the pool, she
simply wrote FUN. She looked forward to many more summers swimming at Yost Pool. Mayor Earling assured
at this time there are no cuts anticipated for Yost Pool.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the police contract with the Town of Woodway. He explained the
Edmonds Police Department responded to 30,413 incidents during 2011 and 22,018 incidents not including
traffic stops. Calls to Woodway are included in the 22,018. The Police Department budget for 2012 is $9.5
million. Assuming the number of non-traffic incidents in 2012 will be the same as 2011 and applying 100% of
the Police Department’s expenses to the 22,108 incidents, equates to $431 per incident. A calculation of $431
multiplied by 10 calls as proposed in Woodway’s contract equates to $4,310/month. The charge should be
something less than that amount because Edmonds Police do not patrol Woodway for crime prevention or do
any parking enforcement. To those that think Edmonds Police Department’s time is excessively diluted by calls
to Woodway, the annual report indicates there were 822 incidents per Field Services Officer in 2012. Assuming
the same would be true in 2012, Woodway’s 120 calls are only 15% of one of those officers’ time. His
understanding was without this contract with Woodway, the City will lose revenue but not lose any expenses.
Edmonds has not been subsidizing Woodway as some have suggested. He urged the Council to make an
unemotional and objective assessment and approve the proposed contract.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, commented everyone loves Edmonds but there is a silent killer in Edmonds, the train.
The number of trains is increasing and a quiet zone is needed which she acknowledged is expensive. She
recalled a meeting this summer regarding problems created with access to the waterfront by the increasing
number of trains but it did not address the noise. Until the City can afford a quiet zone, she recommended the
City discuss with Burlington Northern how often the train horn is activated when traveling through Edmonds
day and night. She commented on the potential for noise from planes from Paine Field and the noise from
ferries, summarizing the train noise is particularly bothersome and getting worse.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 5, Budget Schedule, commenting the budget is an important
issue to many citizens.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented regarding the City needing to deal with the Edmonds School District
(ESD) on several park properties. Projects listed in the CIP include a pool complex and the old Edmonds-
Woodway High School for ballfields only. He recommended combining those projects because there is space at
the old Edmonds-Woodway High School for a pool. He recommended appointing a Council representative to
the ESD Board, similar to the Council liaison to the Port in order to establish a rapport with the School District
and the Board. He also commented that he was glad to see there is a presentation on tonight’s agenda regarding
chip sealing.
6. POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT - TOWN OF WOODWAY
(Councilmember Yamamoto participated in this item by phone.)
Police Chief Al Compaan explained this matter was last before the Council on August 6. Since that time,
Council President Peterson has engaged with representatives from Woodway to reach terms acceptable to both
parties. The proposed Police Services Contract is a flat fee of $3,000/month for up to 10 police responses into
the Town of Woodway and an additional charge pro-rated every 15 minutes for a second officer on a response.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed contract included a cost escalator or cost of living adjustment
after one year. Chief Compaan answered it did not. The contract has a two year term with an option for a two
year renewal.
Packet Page 444 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 7
Councilmember Petso asked for a typical escalator in department costs. Chief Compaan answered the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-W) increase June 2011 to June 2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Petso asked whether Police
Department costs increased in line with CPI-W. Chief Compaan answered roughly they do.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN OF
WOODWAY.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Council President Peterson for negotiating this contract with Woodway. She
ran the numbers and the proposed $3,000/month contract covers overtime and other costs. She supported the
proposed contract, pointing out there was a social equity issue that also needs to be considered.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE CONTRACT RATE BE INCREASED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CPI AT THE END OF ONE YEAR.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if CPI was approximately 5%. Chief Compaan answered the CPI-W increase
2011-2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Buckshnis observed that would be approximately an $80/month increase.
Chief Compaan relayed Woodway’s request that the City bill them on a quarterly basis if the Council approved
the proposed contract.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the comment that Edmonds would provide services to Woodway even without a
contract. Her understanding of that comment was that it would only be in an emergency, life and death situation.
Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked how many emergency, life and death situations there have
been. Chief Compaan responded Priority 1 calls are approximately 10% of the total number of calls in
Woodway in a year.
Councilmember Bloom summarized her understanding was if Edmonds did not have a contract with Woodway
to provide police services, Edmonds Police would still provide service but only for a very small number of calls.
Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked if that was also true of Esperance. Chief Compaan agreed
it was.
Councilmember Bloom referred to comments that the benefit of the police services contract with Woodway was
the City would get some money for services the Police Department would provide anyway. However, her
understanding was the amount of service the Edmonds Police Department would provide without a contract
would be very minimal. Chief Compaan agreed.
Councilmember Bloom recalled when this issue was last discussed there was a cost comparison of the 2012 per
capita spending on police services between Edmonds and Woodway. She supported a full service contract rather
than the previously proposed contract, because the cost of direct police services per $1000 of assessed value in
Edmonds is $1.50 versus $0.36 in Woodway. She asked Chief Compaan to comment on how a cost per call was
used to determine the proposed contract versus using assessed valuation. Chief Compaan answered there were a
myriad of ways of calculating reasonable compensation for providing police services to Woodway. What is
reasonable and fair is what both parties are willing to pay/receive. The $3,000 proposed monthly cost was
determined by the total number of calls in Edmonds in a year divided into the 2012 budget which equates to
approximately $300/call. He acknowledged it is a different calculation than was shared by Mr. Wambolt but
neither is incorrect; they are just different ways of looking at the same set of data. Council President Peterson
reached agreement with Woodway on a contract amount that he determined was a responsible amount and that
Woodway was willing to pay.
Packet Page 445 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 8
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the number of police were determined, whether it was based on
population or historical calls. Chief Compaan answered both, there is no magic formula; it is very dependent on
the community, the demand for services, crime rate and population.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked him to describe the L-5 population indicator that is used to determine the
number of patrol officers. Chief Compaan answered it depends on the community; the City of Seattle has a
much higher ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents than Edmonds but the nature of police activity is also
different. Edmonds currently has approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents; Seattle is significantly higher.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether population of L-5 cities is considered for salaries and benefits.
Chief Compaan answered yes with regard to the compensation policy; that is different than the number of police
officers in a community.
Councilmember Petso recalled when she contacted the Edmonds Police Department for a breakdown between
residential and commercial burglary calls, staff indicated that data was not available at this time but would be
available with the New World system. Chief Compaan explained when the New World system is operational,
hopefully next year, the recovery of data to such inquiries would be much easier. Today it is very difficult if not
impossible to extract that data.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO STRIKE SECTION 1.3, WHICH STATES, “THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE
EXTENDED ONCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2015
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016 ON THE SAME TERMS OR SUCH OTHER TERMS AS THE
PARTIES MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.”
Councilmember Johnson recognized the City is facing a budget deficit; it would be prudent to limit the City’s
commitment to two years and continue to evaluate the contract in the coming years to consider all options.
Council President Peterson indicated he would support the proposed amendment. During the next two years the
New World system will be able to provide more specific data.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented having an outstanding relationship with a neighboring city is
always important but continuing a partnership is a reciprocal relationship. The contract as proposed is a
detriment to the taxpayers of Edmonds. The Council has not done its due diligence to get cost comparisons.
Woodway has gotten estimates from surrounding police forces of the cost to provide police services; Woodway
has not provided the City those estimates but she has been told they are more than 10 times more than what
Woodway would pay under the proposed contract with Edmonds. To the question of what is the right amount to
charge Woodway, she pointed out that was unknown as the contract was based on good fiscal times when
staffing levels in the Police Department were much higher. The only cost comparison is what Woodway pays
Fire District 1 which is over $500,000/year. The money Woodway pays Fire District 1 is their insurance policy.
The cost for fire service is based on population, not number of calls as Woodway would like to pay Edmonds for
police services. Woodway had less than 30 fire calls/year which equates to approximately $17,000 per call.
Edmonds bases its number of police, types of specialists in the Edmonds Police Department such as drug
taskforce, reconstructionists, detectives, hostage teams, property managers, etc. and hard costs such as Kelly
hours, callback, leave accruals, salaries, specialty pay, etc. on population. L-5 has been the tool used for salary
and benefit costs which is based on population, not the number of calls or whether calls are residential or
commercial. The size of the City’s police force is not determined by number of calls.
Packet Page 446 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 9
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the Edmonds Police Department budget is approximately $9.5
million/year; 25-33% of the City’s total budget. The 39,000 Edmonds citizens support the $9.5 million budget,
approximately $245/person/year. Woodway has approximately 1500 citizens; a cost for police services of
$360,000/year based on this population data. Less the average of 8 hours/day of Woodway’s current coverage,
means Woodway should pay approximately $240,000/year or $20,000 month to break even. When someone
purchases an insurance policy or police services for their home, it is insurance in case something happens. She
has been purchasing homeowners insurance for 25 years and has never filed a claim but if she needed to, it
would be there. She will respectfully support the citizens of Edmonds and the Edmonds Police Department and
will vote no on subsidizing Woodway.
Councilmember Petso did not support the motion as she did not feel a per call fee, a flat fee or partial service
was a reasonable way to pay for police services. She supported Chief Compaan’s earlier suggestion to offer
Woodway a full service contract and the benefits that would provide both cities. She pointed out the difficulty
pricing partial service; using the numbers Councilmember Fraley-Monillas provided, Edmonds citizens pay
$245/person; under the proposed contract, Woodway citizens would pay $24/person which is not equitable. She
referred comments that this as a backup service contract, pointing out in police service there is no backup
service; the service provided is that a citizen can call anytime something happens and police personnel will
come with the right equipment to address the situation. That is the service citizens are paying for even though
they never or rarely have the need to call the police.
Councilmember Petso explained the difficulty of a partial service contract. She used the example of Edmonds
residents living in a secure complex with alarms and fences who never call the police; should they get a partial
service contract like Woodway? They would not because citizens pay for the availability of the service, not
based on how much they personally use the service. She did not support the motion and preferred a full service
contract with Woodway for police services.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for her research and Councilmember Petso for
her comments. She also did not support the motion. She pointed out the per capita comparison was presented
when the Council last discussed this contract. That information indicated if Woodway paid the same
$1.50/$1000 assessed value as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be $663,944/year.
If Woodway paid the same $246 per capita as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be
$321,030. She could not support the proposed contract of $36,000 to provide 16 hours of service/day to
Woodway. She felt that devalued the excellent Edmonds Police force and gave away police services.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out another issue is this contract is proposed in advance of a budget that the
Council does not know whether will include cutting a police officer or more; $36,000/year does not even cover
the cost of one officer. She could possibly consider a compromise, covering the cost of one police officer. She
concluded there was no way she would put this on the back of citizens, expecting them to pay for services
provided to Woodway.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is not a black and white issue. There are Woodway citizens that sit
on City boards and at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, dine at restaurants in the Edmonds, and shop in
Edmonds. She acknowledged $36,000/year to some is not worth bothering with but there is a social equity issue.
Once Edmonds begins Budgeting By Priorities (approximately when this contract expires and when the New
World system will be operational) more data will be available regarding an appropriate amount. She did not
support increasing the police services contract with Woodway from $7,000, the amount they paid last year, to
$420,000 or $265,000. She summarized $36,000/year, based on hours of service plus $75 per 15 minute
increment is a fair contract amount.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized she was standing for the citizens of Edmonds, not the citizens of
Woodway. Woodway should not be rewarded for sitting on boards or coming to Edmonds via a gift of public
funds.
Packet Page 447 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 10
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3);
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, YAMAMOTO, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND PETSO
VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting by phone.)
4. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS IN BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
(BC) AND BUSINESS DOWNTOWN (BD) ZONES.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the City has been approached
by the Edmonds Historical Museum regarding operating a produce-only farmers market on Wednesday evenings
in the BC (Commercial Business) or BD (Downtown Business) zones beginning in late September this year and
extending through approximately November. The City’s Development Code does not expressly list farmers
markets as a permitted use in the BC or BD zones. The code allows seasonal markets to operate but only during
May to September.
If approved by the City Council, the proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow farmers markets in the BC
and BD zones. In addition to the issue of farmers markets, staff looked at other areas of the code and found the
licensing section, 4.90, also needs significant revisions. If the City Council desires to extend the life of the
existing Saturday Market or create a year-round farmers market, that would not be allowed under the current
licensing provisions. For example, the licensing section only allows the market to take place on Saturday or
Sunday in public rights-of-way between the months of July and September. The current market, which operates
between May and October, does not adhere to the existing code. The City’s code references community open air
markets; a year-round market would likely need to be indoors during the winter months. The code also
references the year 1994 and a “test.” He summarized the current market is well beyond the testing phase and
has proven to be very successful. Another issue that needs to be reviewed is the possibility of allowing
community markets in the public right-of-way as well as on public and private property.
The proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow the produce-only farmers market in the BC and BD zones
through November. Within the next 60 days, staff will draft code revisions to address the issues of farmers
markets, community-oriented market, community-oriented open air market, etc. as well as how the markets
would operate on public right-of-way, public property or private property.
A question was raised at the Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee meeting regarding operation of a
market within a densely populated area, specifically BD4 and BD5. Mr. Clifton explained the BD5 zone is
located on 4th Avenue between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts; there are no suitable locations
for the type of market the Edmonds Historical Museum wants to operate, up to 27 vendors. The Edmonds
Historical Museum likely would operate along the waterfront such as on Port property or the Antique Mall
property. The Historical Museum inquired about operating in the Public Works Maintenance Yard at 2nd &
Dayton but that is not feasible due to the existing tenants’ utilization of the parking lot on Wednesday evenings.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the Wednesday farmers market could be located and suggested the
atrium on the other side of Artworks on 2nd & Dayton. Mr. Clifton replied that site would not be large enough
for 27 vendors. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if streets would be closed to accommodate the Wednesday
market. Mr. Clifton explained the Wednesday market would likely be located at the Port or the Antique Mall
property. After researching the downtown area, those are the two areas that could host such an event.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Clifton for the work that was done on this. In the strategic planning
process, a year-round market was one of citizens’ highest priorities; this is a step in that direction. She relayed
her understanding that the proposed interim ordinance would allow a produce-only market but not crafts such as
the current summer market offers. Mr. Clifton agreed, explaining the produce-only market might include
Packet Page 448 of 468
AM-7248 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Presentation and Potential Action on the Proposed Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District
Work Program and Budget for Year 2015
Recommendation
The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board is requesting that the City Council
approve the attached proposed work program and budget for year 2015.
Previous Council Action
On January 15, 2013 the City Council approved Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement
district within a portion of the City of Edmonds.
Narrative
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are designed to aid general economic development in business
districts and to facilitate merchant and service business cooperation. A BID is a local self-help funding
mechanism that allows businesses and/or property owners within a defined area to establish a special
assessment district. In Washington State BIDs are authorized by statute, Revised Code of Washington
35.87A.
The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3909 on January 15, 2013 that established the Edmonds
Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID). Consequently Edmonds City Code Section 3.75
provides the City's regulations and requirements related to the EDBID. Subsection 120 thereof requires
that the EDBID recommend and submit annual work programs and budget to the City Council for review
and consideration by October 1st of each year. The EDBID met this required deadline by submitting its
Work Plan and Budget for Year 2015 (Attachment 1) on October 1, 2014.
Attachments
EDBID 2015 Work Plan & Budget
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/28/2014 11:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/28/2014 11:42 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/28/2014 11:44 AM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 10/28/2014 11:29 AM
Packet Page 449 of 468
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2014
Packet Page 450 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE
PROPOSED 2015
WORK PROGRAM & PLAN
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared pursuant to
Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120
Packet Page 451 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance is to encourage, promote and
participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions for the mutual
benefit of businesses in the district and the city of Edmonds.
Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes:
A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social
media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists,
historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events
B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment
enhancements
C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy &
communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture
D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking
management & mitigation
E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research,
business recruitment
F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs
INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District, now doing business as Ed! Edmonds
Downtown Alliance (the “Alliance”), was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The
following is the third year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds
City Council through December 31, 2015. It includes a description of the Alliance, proposed services,
sources of funding, annual budget and allocations.
PROPOSED 2015 SERVICES
The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and
enhancement of the Alliance and to meet the needs identified by members of the Alliance.
The services are not intended to take the place of, but add to or supplement those services
provided by the City and/or other Edmonds based organizations. The services will be
executed under the direction of the Alliance Members Advisory Board.
A. Non-profit Organization
The Members Advisory Board formed a non-profit organization incorporated under
Washington law and received Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service
as a public charity. The Alliance will begin working with the City to discuss potential
contracting arrangements between the City and the Nonprofit Corporation for executing
Packet Page 452 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
the responsibilities, including independent financial review. In addition, the Alliance
may engage the services of a local attorney and/or tax specialist, pro bono and partially
compensated, to assist with legal matters, including filing of taxes and reports for
Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service.
B. Administration
The Alliance Board may contract with an individual(s) to provide general administration
regarding the operations and maintenance of the Alliance.
Operating expenses will include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance, post
office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal,
accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as-needed basis. When
appropriate, pro-bono services will be used.
C. Assessment and Evaluation
The Alliance recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to
demonstrate effective and efficient use of Alliance resources. As such, the Alliance will
include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within
its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member
surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc.
D. Member Engagement and Outreach
Creating a collaborative and effective business district is a high priority for the Alliance.
Communications to members will take place regularly and in a cost-effective manner. A
member meeting will be held in April 2015 to elect board members and as a forum to
seek input into the mission and activities of the Alliance. The Alliance has moved to
electronic notifications, other than by request, the annual member meeting and ballot
mailings, to save member resources.
E. Friends of Ed! - Business and Civic Collaboration and Outreach
Partnering with existing organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of
the Alliance and the shared objectives of our partner organizations. The Alliance will
continue to maintain a comprehensive list of organizations, known as the Friends of Ed!
and will coordinate a bi-annual meeting to discuss community priorities.
F. Marketing
Packet Page 453 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
Currently, the Alliance is in the process of finalizing website design and branding and
implementing our umbrella share program. In 2015, the Alliance anticipates continuing
marketing outreach efforts internally and externally by exploring additional visual
branding campaigns and products. Ideas include: newsletter template, new business
welcome kit, print ads, window clings, tote bags, and a specific targeted marketing
campaign for “local first” advertising.
G. Professional Business Resources
Being mindful of by-appointment members’ needs, the Alliance will offer services as
determined to be beneficial to the members. Examples include, but are not limited to,
business directories, professional services, seminars, and assistance with social media,
search engine optimization, etc.
In 2015, the Alliance will begin planning, research and implementation of an electronic
physical downtown directory that includes all member businesses.
H. Parking
Members of the Alliance parking committee will continue working in concert with city
efforts related to parking.
Based on 2014 committee research, underutilized parking spaces and areas where
parking is difficult have been identified. Potential solutions to be explored in 2015
include: better signage and visual identification for existing public parking and after
hours parking lot availability.
The committee will continue to identify solutions, including better walkability and
education of business owners regarding employee permit parking areas.
I. Appearance and Environment
Research projects and costs related to enhancing the appearance of the Alliance District.
Projects may include, but are not limited to, the umbrella program, adding additional
garbage/recycling cans, identifying public restroom options, crosswalk safety and
beautification, installation of new and fewer 3 hour parking signs, improved alley way
appearance and walkability, programs to encourage building owners to think beyond
beige color palates for buildings and enhancing vacant storefront appearance.
Packet Page 454 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
J. Small Grants Program
The Alliance is working on creating a pilot Small Grants Program to help harness the
power of our local business community. The program will utilize a grassroots
approach to identifying projects and allocating funds for approved grants as long as
they fall within the Alliance's mission and scope of work provided in Ordinance
3909. The Alliance board is working on finalizing the Grant criteria, eligibility, process,
requirements and timeline in 2014. We anticipate opening the program to eligible
applicants in 2015.
K. Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment
In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the Alliance Board will research the
potential of boundary adjustments to include some businesses not currently included in
the Alliance boundaries. The alliance will report its findings to the city council.
L. 2016 Work Plan and Budget
The Alliance Advisory Board will prepare a 2016 work program, plan and annual budget
to present to Edmonds City Council in October 2015.
II. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING
A. Assessments
Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909.
B. Grants and Donations
The 501(c)(3) organization formed by the Alliance may pursue and accept grants and
donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and
other non-profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law.
III. ANNUAL BUDGET
A. Budgeted Revenue
The projected assessments collected for 2015 will be approximately $89,000.
B. Budgeted Expenditures
In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated
that the budgeted expenditures for the 2015 operating year of the Alliance will be as
follows:
Packet Page 455 of 468
Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14
Administration $ 17,000
Marketing $ 22,000
Engagement and Outreach $ 5,000
Professional Business Resources $ 10,000
Small Grants Program $ 10,000
Appearance & Environment $ 20,000
TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $ 84,000
C. Unallocated Funds
An unallocated fund balance is projected. The Alliance reserves the right to use
unallocated funds as necessary.
D. Subsequent Budgets
The Alliance shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for
expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which
monies are proposed to be expended by the Alliance; and (ii) set forth the total amount
proposed to be expended. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for
subsequent years, shall be referred to as the “Budget.”
E. General Provisions
i. The Alliance shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and
pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been
approved by the City.
ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves
held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount,
the Alliance may choose to eliminate some expenditures in order to balance the
budget.
iii. The Alliance, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial
report in accordance with Ordinance 3909, as amended.
Packet Page 456 of 468
AM-7250 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/03/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Lighthouse Law Group PLCC Agreement Renewal
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Approval to renew City Attorney contract during March 3, 2011 Council Meeting as follows:
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Narrative
Attached is a proposed agreement with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC for city attorney services for the
four years from 2015 through 2018. This agreement is based on the financial data provided in the council
packet in May and October of this year.
Attached is also a PDF of the agreement that has governed Lighthouse’s relationship with the city since
2011. The prior attorney, Scott Snyder, represented the city during the negotiation and drafting of the
2011 agreement. The new agreement takes the 2011 agreement and then identifies proposed revisions in
by track changes. In this regard, it should be easy to identify which items in the agreement were carried
over from the last agreement and which items has been revised.
The most significant revision is in Section 4, which is an entirely new section. This section provides a
clearer basis for the city to recoup some of the cost of Lighthouse in the rare instance where a fee award
would be authorized. It also provides for the possibility that we could receive additional compensation,
not from the city, but from an opposing party, where we are asked to pursue litigation of small matters.
This seems fair to us because there is a good chance that such suits may not be commenced at all if the
city were contracting for legal services on an hourly basis. The reason for the addition of this provision is
that staff has mentioned its interest in foreclosing upon some liens of unpaid utility bills and this would be
the rare instance that Section 4 would be utilized.
The Council has to decide:
1) If we wish to send this agreement out to have another attorney firm review the entire agreement,
Packet Page 457 of 468
specifically section #4.
2) Remove section #4 and approve as written since it was reviewed by the City Attorney in 2011.
3) Leave section #4 and approve as submitted.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:$492,000
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
Attachment 1- Lighthouse Agreement with Edmonds 2011
Attachment 2- 2014-10-28 Lighthouse Agreement with Edmonds
Attachment 3 - 10-7-14 Approved Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/30/2014 11:28 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/30/2014 11:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/30/2014 01:23 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/29/2014 09:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/30/2014
Packet Page 458 of 468
AGREEMENT FOR CIVI L L EGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT entered into between the City of Edmonds ("the City") and
Lighthouse Law Group PLLC ("LIGHTHOUSE") effective March 4, 2011, is entered into in
consideration of the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services to be Provided. LIGHTHOUSE will serve as attorneys for the City on all
civil legal matters assigned or referred to LIGHTHOUSE by the City during the term of this
Agreement, and will perform all civil legal services for the City with the exception of litigation
covered by the City's insurance pool and legal services related to the issuance of any municipal
bond or similar security.
This is a nonexclusive agreement and the City at its sole discretion may engage other legal
counsel regarding any service that is expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE . Examples of
such services expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE include, but are not limited to:
1.1 Preparing for and attending meetings of the City Council and City Council
Committees, as necessary or requested to do so .;
1.2 Drafting ordinances, resolutions, and decisions;
1.3 Answering telephone calls from City elected officials and staff and providing
general consultation on civil legal matters;
1.4 Attending meetings with City staff (including regular office hours if
requested), the Mayor, and/or Council Members on civil legal matters;
1.5 Attending meetings of other City boards and commissions, such as the
Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner, when requested to do so; and
1.6 Negotiating with third parties other than in a litigation context, e.g .,
negotiating development agreements.
1.7 Representing the City and its officials in litigation matters, provided, that in
cases where the City and its officials have insurance coverage through
WCIA or another insurer, LIGHTHOUSE will represent the City and its
officials only until WCIA retained attorneys are actively handling the case or
to the extent necessary to deal with non-covered claims or to provide
consultation and coordination between the City and the WCIA retained
attorneys;
1.8 Labor negotiation or arbitration;
1.9 Services related to local improvement districts;
{WSS865033 DOC; 1\00006.900000\ }
- 1 -
Packet Page 459 of 468
1.10 Services related to taxation ;
1.11 Services requiring expertise in CERCLA, MTCA, or other state or federal
environmental cleanup laws;
1.12 Representing the City in administrative proceedings before another
governmental unit (such as Boundary Review Board hearings, proceedings
before the State Shoreline Hearings Board, or proceedings before the State
Growth Management Hearings Board); and
1.13 Telecommunications services, including franchise negotiation and leasing.
1.14 Office hours at City Hall will be provided by LIGHTHOUSE pursuant to the
declarations made by LIGHTHOUSE during the RFQ process.
2. Personnel Performing Services. Jeff Taraday will be the lead attorney and shall have
the primary responsibility for attending City Council meetings and delegating work to other
LIGHTHOUSE attorneys as needed. Mr. Taraday may assign work to any attorney named in
LIGHTHOUSE'S proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as
if herein set forth. Provision of service by any other attorney shall require prior approval by the
Mayor with notification provided to the Council of such assignment and approval.
3. Payment for Services. The City will pay LIGHTHOUSE for the services specified
in the sum of $32,000 a month (the flat fee). This amount may be adjusted in future years with the
mutual consent of the parties. Any request for increase shall be submitted by September 1 of any
year for consideration in the budget process. In no case will the fee be adjusted prior to December
31,2014. If LIGHTHOUSE'S request for an increase is denied, it may terminate this agreement by
providing sixty (60) days written notice. Approval of a budget including a proposed or negotiated
rate shall be deemed to amend the rate set forth above, effective January 1 of the following year.
4. [RESERVED]
5. The City will not be charged separately for normal clerical or secretarial work, the
expense of which has been calculated into LIGHTHOUSE's flat fee. Reimbursement will be made
by the City for expenditures related to fees paid to a mediator, expert witness fees, court costs and
fees, copying, postage and mileage and parking. Other expenses shall be reimbursed when
authorized in advance by the City.
6. Billing. The City shall pay the amount of the flat fee to LIGHTHOUSE on the last
day of the month for which the legal services have been rendered. It shall not be necessary for
LIGHTHOUSE to send an invoice for the flat fee to be paid. For informational purposes only,
LIGHTHOUSE will send a detailed monthly description of the services rendered during the past
month.
{WSS865033 .DOC;J\00006.900000\ )
- 2 -
Packet Page 460 of 468
7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on March 4 , 2011 and shall
remain in effect until December 31 , 2014. This is an agreement for legal services and the City as
client may terminate the agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days notice. LIGHTHOUSE
may terminate only as provided in Section 3. In the event of termination , work in progress will be
completed by LIGHTHOUSE if authorized by the City under terms acceptable to both parties. If
completion of work in progress is not authorized or acceptable terms cannot be worked out,
LIGHTHOUSE will submit all unfinished documents , reports, or other material to City and
LIGHTHOUSE will be entitled to receive payment for any and all satisfactory work completed
prior to the effective date of telmination .
8 . Professional Liability Insurance. LIGHTHOUSE will maintain professional liability
insurance throughout the duration of this Agreement in the minimum amount of$2,000,000 .
9. Discrimination . LIGHTHOUSE agrees not to discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of
race, creed, color, national origin, marital status , sex, age , or physical, mental or sensory handicap ,
except where a bona fide occupational qualification exists.
10. Independent Contractor. LIGHTHOUSE is an independent contractor with respect
to the services to be provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for, nor obligated
to pay to LIGHTHOUSE, or any employee of LIGHTHOUSE, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime or
any other benefit applicable to employees of the City, nor to payor deduct any social security,
income tax, or other tax from the payments made to LIGHTHOUSE which may arise as an incident
of LIGHTHOUSE performing services for the City. The City shall not be obligated to pay
industrial insurance for the services rendered by LIGHTHOUSE.
11. Ownership of Work Product. All opinions, data, materials, reports, memoranda, and
other documents developed by LIGHTHOUSE under this Agreement specifically for the City are
the property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request, and may be used by the City as
the City s~es fit.
12. Hold Harmless . LIGHTHOUSE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the
City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims,
judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of
LIGHTHOUSE. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend LIGHTHOUSE, its
members, employees, and approved sub-contractors (e.g. Special Counsel), from and against any
and all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents. To the extent
necessary to fully fulfill these promises of indemnity, the parties waive their immunity under Title
51 RCW.
13 . Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by LIGHTHOUSE under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys
established by the Washington Supreme Court.
{WSS865033 .DOC;I \00006 .900000\ }
- 3 -
Packet Page 461 of 468
14. Work for Other Clients. LIGHTHOUSE may provide other services for clients
other than the City during the term of this Agreement , but will not do so where the same may
constitute a conflict of interest as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct unless the City, after
full disclosure of the potential or actual conflict, consents in writing to the representation . Any
potential conflicts shall be handled in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to
above .
15. Subcontracting or Assignment. LIGHTHOUSE may not assign or subcontract any
pOltion of the services to be provided under this agreement without the express written consent of
the City, PROVIDED THAT such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT by this Agreement, the City hereby consents to LIGHTHOUSE's
subcontracting with the following Special Counsel referenced in LIGHTHOUSE's proposal: Susan
Drummond, Chuck Wolfe, and Mike Bradley and/or the respective legal entities through which they
perform their legal services.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement
between the City and the LIGHTHOUSE, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, written or oral. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by
written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. In the event of a conflict between this
Agreement and Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control.
Date : __ ~-----+-'"13,,----+-) _l_\ _____ _ Date :_~2«__;/f-,).,.<-+-/-'-'J/------
CITY OF EDMONDS LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
~~
Mayor Mike Cooper T JeTaraday, Managing Member
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
~,d (L
!Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
(WSS865033.DOC; 1 \00006 .900000\ )
-4 -
Packet Page 462 of 468
AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT entered into between the City of Edmonds ("the City") and Lighthouse Law
Group PLLC ("LIGHTHOUSE") effective March 4January 1, 20151, is entered into in consideration of the
terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services to be Provided. LIGHTHOUSE will serve as attorneys for the City on all civil legal
matters assigned or referred to LIGHTHOUSE by the City during the term of this Agreement, and
will perform all civil legal services for the City with the exception of litigation covered by the City's
insurance pool and legal services related to the issuance of any municipal bond or similar security.
This is a nonexclusive agreement and the City at its sole discretion may engage other legal counsel
regarding any service that is expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE. Examples of such services
expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE include, but are not limited to:
1.1 Preparing for and attending meetings of the City Council and City Council
Committees, if applicable, as necessary or requested to do so;
1.2 Drafting ordinances, resolutions, and decisions;
1.3 Answering telephone calls from City elected officials and staff and providing general
consultation on civil legal matters;
1.4 Attending meetings with City staff (including regular office hours if requested), the
Mayor, and/or Council Members on civil legal matters;
1.5 Attending meetings of other City boards and commissions, such as the Planning
Commission Board and Hearing Examiner, when requested to do so; and
1.6 Negotiating with third parties other than in a litigation context, e.g., negotiating
development agreements.
1.7 Representing the City and its officials in litigation matters, provided, that in cases
where the City and its officials have insurance coverage through WCIA or another
insurer, LIGHTHOUSE will represent the City and its officials only until WCIA
retained attorneys are actively handling the case or to the extent necessary to deal
with non-covered claims or to provide consultation and coordination between the City
and the WCIA retained attorneys;
1.8 Labor negotiation or arbitration;
1.9 Services related to local improvement districts;
Packet Page 463 of 468
1.10 Services related to taxation;
1.11 Services requiring expertise in CERCLA, MTCA, or other state or federal
environmental cleanup laws;
1.12 Representing the City in administrative proceedings before another governmental unit
(such as Boundary Review Board hearings, proceedings before the State Shoreline
Hearings Board, or proceedings before the State Growth Management Hearings
Board); and
1.13 Telecommunications services, including franchise negotiation and leasing.
1.14 Office hours at City Hall will be provided by LIGHTHOUSE pursuant to the
declarations made by LIGHTHOUSE during the RFQ processat least two days a
week.
2. Personnel Performing Services. Jeff Taraday will be the lead attorney and shall have the
primary responsibility for attending City Council meetings and delegating work to other
LIGHTHOUSE attorneys as needed. Mr. Taraday may assign work to any attorney named in
LIGHTHOUSE'S proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forthaffiliated with LIGHTHOUSE. Provision of service by any other attorney shall
require prior approval by the Mayor with notification provided to the Council of such assignment
and approval.
3. Payment for Services. The City will pay LIGHTHOUSE for the services specified in the sum
of Forty-one Thousand Dollars ($3241,000) a month (the flat fee). This amount may be adjusted in
future years with the mutual consent of the parties. Any request for increase in the flat fee shall be
submitted by September 1 of any year for consideration in the budget process. In no case will the fee
be adjusted prior to December 31,2014. If LIGHTHOUSE'S request for an increase is denied, it may
terminate this agreement by providing sixty (60) days written notice. In the absence of a specific
request for increase of the flat fee, the flat fee shall increase on January 1 of each year by 4%.
Approval of a budget including a proposed or negotiated rate flat fee shall be deemed to amend the
rate set forth above, effective January 1 of the following year.
4. [RESERVED]Awards of Attorneys Fees. If the City prevails in a legal matter and the
tribunal awards reasonable attorneys fees to the City as the prevailing party, the hourly rates below
shall apply for the purposes of calculating such fee award, notwithstanding the fact that
LIGHTHOUSE does not charge for its services to the City on an hourly basis. These rates shall also
be used where the City is able to charge a third-party (e.g. a real estate developer) for work
performed by LIGHTHOUSE.
Jeff Taraday: $260
Sharon Cates: $230
Patricia Taraday: $225
Rosa Fruehling-Watson: $245
Beth Ford: $175
other attorneys: $175
Upon receipt of a fee award, the City shall keep the entire award PROVIDED THAT in cases
initiated by the City including abatement actions, utility lien foreclosures, and other matters involving
collection of a debt that is less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars, any attorneys fee award shall be paid to
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Default, Left, Indent: Left: 0.5",
Space After: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Default, Left, Space After: 0 pt,
No bullets or numbering
Packet Page 464 of 468
LIGHTHOUSE.
4.
5. The City will not be charged separately for normal clerical or secretarial work, the expense of
which has been calculated into LIGHTHOUSE's flat fee. Reimbursement will be made by the City
for expenditures related to fees paid to a mediator, expert witness fees, court costs and fees, copying,
postage, process service and mileage and parkingcourier costs. Other expenses shall be reimbursed
when authorized in advance by the City.
6. Billing. The City shall pay the amount of the flat fee to LIGHTHOUSE on the last day of the
month for which the legal services have been rendered. It shall not be necessary for LIGHTHOUSE
to send an invoice for the flat fee to be paid. For informational purposes only, LIGHTHOUSE will
send a detailed monthly description of the services rendered during the past month.
7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on March 4, 2011January 1, 2015 and
shall remain in effect until December 31, 20142018. This is an agreement for legal services and the
City as client may terminate the agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days notice.
LIGHTHOUSE may terminate only as provided in Section 3. In the event of termination, work in
progress will be completed by LIGHTHOUSE if authorized by the City under terms acceptable to
both parties. If completion of work in progress is not authorized or acceptable terms cannot be
worked out, LIGHTHOUSE will submit all unfinished documents, reports, or other material to City
and LIGHTHOUSE will be entitled to receive payment for any and all satisfactory work completed
prior to the effective date of termination.
8. Professional Liability Insurance. LIGHTHOUSE will maintain professional liability
insurance throughout the duration of this Agreement in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.
9. Discrimination. LIGHTHOUSE agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed,
color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, or physical, mental or sensory handicap, except where
a bona fide occupational qualification exists.
10. Independent Contractor. LIGHTHOUSE is an independent contractor with respect to the
services to be provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for, nor obligated to pay to
LIGHTHOUSE, or any employee of LIGHTHOUSE, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime or any other
benefit applicable to employees of the City, nor to pay or deduct any social security, income tax, or
other tax from the payments made to LIGHTHOUSE which may arise as an incident of
LIGHTHOUSE performing services for the City. The City shall not be obligated to pay industrial
insurance for the services rendered by LIGHTHOUSE.
11. Ownership of Work Product. All opinions, data, materials, reports, memoranda, and other
documents developed by LIGHTHOUSE under this Agreement specifically for the City are the
property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request, and may be used by the City as the
City sees fit.
12. Hold Harmless. LIGHTHOUSE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its
elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims,
judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of
LIGHTHOUSE. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend LIGHTHOUSE, its
members, employees, and approved sub-contractors (e.g. Special Counsel), from and against any and
all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents. To the extent
Formatted: Font color: Black
Packet Page 465 of 468
necessary to fully fulfill these promises of indemnity, the parties waive their immunity under Title
51 RCW.
13. Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by LIGHTHOUSE under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys
established by the Washington Supreme Court.
14. Work for Other Clients. LIGHTHOUSE may provide other services for clients other than the
City during the term of this Agreement, but will not do so where the same may constitute a conflict
of interest as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct unless the City, after full disclosure of
the potential or actual conflict, consents in writing to the representation. Any potential conflicts shall
be handled in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to above.
15. Subcontracting or Assignment. LIGHTHOUSE may not assign or subcontract any portion of
the services to be provided under this agreement without the express written consent of the City,
PROVIDED THAT such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT by this Agreement, the City hereby consents to LIGHTHOUSE's subcontracting with the
following Special Counsel referenced in LIGHTHOUSE's proposal: Susan Drummond, Chuck
Wolfe, and Mike Bradley and/or the respective legal entities through which they perform their legal
services.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between the
City and the LIGHTHOUSE, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or agreements,
written or oral. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by written instrument
properly signed by both parties hereto. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Exhibit
A, this Agreement shall control.
Packet Page 466 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 19
reads, “This ordinance shall be in effect for one year from the effective date described herein. On the one
year anniversary of the effective date it shall cease to have effect.”
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3980, 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.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she was absent when this issue was discussed and was unable to
participate. She has been working on issues related to Highway 99 for the past three years and has several
amendments to propose that will address commercial and parking requirements in the code language. If
the amendments are approved, she will propose corresponding changes to the ordinance title and whereas
sections.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND 16.60.020 OF ATTACHMENT A BY DELETING SUBSECTION B,
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADDING A NEW SECTION B, TO
READ, “REPORTING. THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE A
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 TO SUMMARIZE THE 2015
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CG AND CG2 DISTRICTS IN THE HIGHWAY 99
AREA, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE LAND USES AND VEHICLE PARKING. THE
REPORT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW LAND USE AND
PARKING ASPECTS OF THIS CHAPTER ARE WORKING.”
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she did not feel a sunset date was sufficient and recommended
a more in-depth review. Further, if the sunset date was not monitored, the code would revert back to the
old zoning code. She was uncertain why a sunset date was being imposed when most zoning changes did
not have a sunset date.
Councilmember Petso suggested tabling this matter and allowing Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to
provide her proposed amendments in writing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will distribute her proposed amendments to the Council.
15. CONTRACT DISCUSSION (AND/OR RENEWAL) WITH LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
(LIGHTHOUSE)
Council President Buckshnis recalled when this issue was discussed in June, the Council decided to draft
procedures and a process to evaluate the City Attorney services. The evaluation was created, a process
was agreed upon and the evaluation was provided to Councilmembers, the Mayor and Directors. Written
evaluations were received from Councilmembers and the numeric evaluations very favorable. The
administration did not follow the process and a verbal evaluation was conducted with Mayor Earling, Mr.
Taraday, past Council President Councilmember Petso and herself. Since the process not followed
correctly, it will have to be reevaluated. The evaluation is a separate issue to be addressed next year. The
evaluations were very favorable; concerns expressed by the Mayor and Directors were addressed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO RENEW THE CONTRACT WITH LIGHTHOUSE.
Packet Page 467 of 468
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 20
Councilmember Peterson suggested Lighthouse provide a hierarchy of how Lighthouse prioritizes their
time related to Council, Mayor and Staff requests. For the public’s knowledge, he explained the City
Attorney is hired by the City Council, not the Mayor. Council President Buckshnis advised a study
session is scheduled to discuss whether one Councilmember can make a request of the City Attorney, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented although this discussion is good but it has nothing to do
with renewal of the Lighthouse contract.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to future agenda.
17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling remarked it had been a joy to work on the budget and the directors were glad it was over.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Eslami said he was glad he an opportunity to comment tonight and looked
forward to providing more comments in the future.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Earling for holding the Train Town Hall last Thursday; there
was a lively conversation among the at least 150 people who attended. He looked forward to the follow-
up meeting regarding specific transportation issues.
Councilmember Bloom reported on the exceptional transportation meeting she attended presented by 8-80
Cities’ Director, Gil Penalosa. The meeting’s focus was on people not cars. She relayed two important
takeaways:
1. The name of the company is 8-80 Cities because he wants people to consider transportation and
walkability in terms of an 8 year old and an 80 year old they care about.
2. There should be a physical barrier or grade level change between cars, sidewalks and bike lanes; in
other words, sharrows don’t work. She suggested considering that when reviewing the Sunset Avenue
Walkway Plan.
Councilmember Mesaros reported Sean Ardussi will make a presentation to the Council on October 21
entitled, Economic Evaluation of the Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at
Cherry Point. He advised he will be on vacation the next two weeks.
Council President Buckshnis thanked Mayor Earling and staff for the budget. A study session is
scheduled on the budget as well as two public hearing. She suggested adding a COLA increase for Mayor
Earling as a decision packet and invited Councilmembers to talk to her about it. The Council should
consider the increase even if the City does not have a salary commission in place.
Council President Buckshnis reminded of the scarecrow contest; her scarecrow is a NHL player.
19. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Packet Page 468 of 468